NORTHCOM Cyber/CBRNE FALSE FLAGS, Preemptively Discredited & Exposed

[Anti_Illuminati]

Source (French)

The Carlyle Group is buying Booz Allen Hamilton

Article taken from Intelligence Online:

Among the 80 vice-presidents of the branch of government Booz Allen Hamilton, acquired by the Carlye Group (read the editorial p.1), ten are explicity in charge of a U.S. Intelligence agency.

At the headquarters of Booz Allen Hamilton in McLean, Virginia, the vice presidents "intelligence" managa essentially two types of benefit:  the training and the provision of critical systems to the agencies.  Almost all use its services:  NSA, DIA, CIA, NRO, NGA (see diagram).  Even the IARP, new R & D cell of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), relies on technology assessments of the firm.

Training of staff of intelligence is an annuity for Booz Allen.  For nearly ten years, the group coaching senior NRO (Future Focus program).  He also briefed analysts 1500 of the DIA on culture-house tools and sharing information.  In 2005, the FBI had given the emergency training of 1000 new analysts (ACES Program). At the ODNI, in addition to developing training modules inter-agencies, consultants Booz Allen working hard on human resources, developing a directory of expertise in overseeing and streamlining the use of subcontractors and evaluating the "social climate" prevailing in the community.

At equipment level, Booz Allen is set to contract the most sensitive design of new cryptographic tools (Cryptographic Modernization Program, NSA);  setting a system of sharing information (contract Diescon 3, DIA), and so on.


Indira Singh


The foreign sourced article reveals some Ptech clients that Indira Singh didn't mention, or didn't know about. They are clients because Booz Allen Hamilton provided its services to them, and are now using more advanced versions of Ptech's Inference Engine AI core for DoDAF 1.5/2.0:

"We should stress that there are numerous war drills and terror maneuvers going on, and all of them require vigilant scrutiny followed by timely denunciation and exposure as necessary. On August 18, a "multi-agency command and control tabletop exercise" was scheduled to be held on the University of California Maritime Campus with the participation of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most sinister of the private military firms, involving the hypothesis of port-related terrorism in and around San Francisco Bay.

200 people were involved as "participants, evaluators, controllers, or observers." On Friday, August 19, a mysterious explosion, later ascribed to a defective transformer, took place in San Francisco. Were these events connected? Or again: from August 15 to August 19, NORTHCOM held Alaska Shield/Northern Edge, with an array of "simulated natural disasters and terrorist events in 21 communities." Incessant terror drills offer the rogue network multiple opportunities to go live with the provocation they are seeking, and also function as a kind of mass brainwashing. With these drills, the secret government is waging war on the people. One basic demand for activists is therefore that these sinister and suspicious drills be called off, since they represent a threat to the American people and to world peace."

- Above quote by Webster Griffin Tarpley
Author - 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism Source Source


_____________________________________________________________
Source
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Booz Allen senior consultant Nicholas Foote performs 3D imaging work for a defense client. (Photo: Courtesy of company.)

About Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

8283 Greensboro Dr., McLean, Va. 22102
www.boozallen.com | 703-902-5000 | Founded: 1914

Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. is an international technology and management consulting firm and one of the U.S. government's largest contractors. Its consultants work on projects related to national defense, health care, intelligence and for almost every department and agency of the federal government.

Industry: Government And Professional Services | Category: Top Private Companies

In January 2006, the company restructured its management and named four new managing directors to lead the firm's worldwide business operations. All report to chief executive Ralph W. Shrader.  Early last year, the Air Force awarded a contract modification valued at as much as $56.6 million to Booz Allen for the operation of its survivability/vulnerability information analysis center. The company also won a 10-year contract from the Army's Communications Electronics Life Cycle Management Command. Booz Allen is one of seven prime contractors selected for the program, which has a funding ceiling of $19.3 billion.

In June, the firm was selected for a multibillion-dollar contract to provide support to the Department of Homeland Security. In July, it was awarded a five-year contract for $32 million to provide future warfare study and "wargaming" support to the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. The firm was also among several contractors selected early this year to be part of a U.S. Agency for International Development effort to reduce poverty and promote economic growth in developing and transitional countries. USAID will spend as much as $3 billion on the project.

Also, the Navy awarded Booz Allen a contract worth as much as $48.5 million over five years to provide management support services to assist the Navy's director of material readiness and logistics. In nongovernment consulting work, Dow Jones & Co. hired the firm to help in a companywide search for additional sources of revenue, including new blogs and other products. Booz Allen also completed a project for the College Board, confirming that the process for scanning SAT exams is reliable.

Chairman and CEO: Ralph W. Shrader
2007 Financial Data
Total employees: 18,914 | Local employees: 11,300
_____________________________________________________________

Pentagon Fraud Chief Dov Zakheim Goes to BoozAllen
by URI DOWBENKO

Source

Rabbi Zakheim has left the Pentagon. Thank God. After more than 20 years of presiding over more than $3 trillion worth of military fraud, Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim has left the building. He will join Booz Allen Hamilton through the traditional revolving door for government-corporate insiders.

A former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense from 1985-1987 and Pentagon Comptroller since 2001, Zakheim was responsible for mismanaging more than $400 billion annually, as Pentagon discredited audits have persisted year after year. The Department of Defense has never received a clean financial audit.

As recently as the December 18, 2003 audit by GAO (General Accounting Office), the Pentagon's 'War on Iraq Scam' and other Information Technology (IT) Fraud yielded $1.6 billion in "losses," money "missing" and otherwise unaccounted for. In an article from "Government Executive" magazine ("Bye Bye Budgeteer," May 2004) Zakheim admitted, "...we are in the business of fighting wars. We are not in the business of balancing books."

Zakheim, an ordained rabbi, is leaving Pentagon finances in shambles with more than 5,000 different financial systems supposedly in place. That means 5,000 open-ended opportunities for fraud. If his position was Chief Financial Officer of a major corporation, Zakheim would be charged with criminal conspiracy, negligence and thousands of counts of fraud. As it is, he is joining the so-called private sector.

After all, privatizing government fraud through the control of accounting and IT systems in federal agencies is the most lucrative scam in America. The US, after all, is One Nation Under Fraud. Ask Rabbi Zakheim. He can tell you how it's done.
_____________________________________________________________
Source

Booz Allen VP and Former NSA Director Addresses LOMA Systems Forum on Homeland Security.

Publication: Business Wire
Date: Thursday, April 11 2002

Business Editors

MCLEAN, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 11, 2002

Booz Allen Hamilton--

Security is a Critical Factor in Business Strategy for the

Financial Sector, Says Booz Allen's Mike McConnell

Financial Services Sector is Vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks On

Network Information

Financial services and insurance companies have a critical role in homeland defense, and must integrate security into their overall business strategies to protect against a wide range of risks and interdependencies, said Mike McConnell, Vice President at Booz Allen Hamilton and former director of the National Security Agency.

McConnell's statements were made as part of a keynote address to business and financial services leaders this week at the 2002 LOMA Systems Forum, one of the premier financial services technology conferences, in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

McConnell stated that, although the financial sector was determined to be the best-prepared for infrastructure assurance by the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, it is still significantly at risk for online security breaches from terrorist attacks, especially when the intent is destruction rather than theft. A December 2001 Evans Data Corporation study discovered that more than one quarter of banking and financial services databases had been broken into.

In addition, finance and insurance companies have substantial interdependencies with more vulnerable sectors, including telecommunications and electric power, McConnell said. Business continuity planning has assumed greater importance since the events of September 11th, based on this high level of interdependency, according to McConnell.

"Business security is a key aspect of homeland defense. Security planning needs to be incorporated across an entire organization to reduce risks in operations, personnel and financial areas, as well as information systems, through a single, integrated strategy," McConnell said.

He further noted that insurance executives and other business leaders need to regard corporate security as more than just a sunk cost necessary to comply with government regulation. "Adequate security adds value to a brand by creating a level of resilience that ensures continuity and the conditions for growth."
_____________________________________________________________
Source

"Across the board, US government intelligence agencies are now highly dependent upon the staff of companies for critical national security functions. Corporate intelligence professionals from companies such as Lockheed, Raytheon, Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC and others are thoroughly integrated into analytical divisions throughout the Intelligence Community, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which produces the final document of the President’s Daily Briefing, based upon analytical products created by the Intelligence Community. It would be hard to find an analytical product that does not have contractor involvement in some way, shape, or form. And it’s not just the products. Raw intelligence gathered by contractors also goes into the pipeline."

Source

July 23, 2007
Corporate Content and the President's Daily Brief

Employees of corporations are handling sensitive government responsibilities in the Intelligence Community, including analytical products that are incorporated into our nation’s most important and sensitive document, the President’s Daily Brief.  Thanks to outsourcing, for-profit companies have the American president’s ear on a daily basis and their words carry the weight of the combined intelligence agencies of the United States. The possibilities for manipulating politics on a global scale are unprecedented and chilling.

The President’s Daily Brief is a summary and analysis of national security issues that requires the President’s immediate attention and that the National Intelligence Director presents to the President each morning.

Across the board, US government intelligence agencies are now highly dependent upon the staff of companies for critical national security functions. Corporate intelligence professionals from companies such as Lockheed, Raytheon, Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC and others are thoroughly integrated into analytical divisions throughout the Intelligence Community, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which produces the final document of the President’s Daily Briefing, based upon analytical products created by the Intelligence Community.  It would be hard to find an analytical product that does not have contractor involvement in some way, shape, or form. And it’s not just the products. Raw intelligence gathered by contractors also goes into the pipeline.

These analytical products from multiple agencies are sifted through, probably in part by contractors, and presented to the President every day as the US Government’s most accurate and most current assessment of priority national security issues. It’s true that the government pays for and signs off on the assessment, but much of the analysis and even some of the underlying intelligence gathering is corporate. Corporations have so penetrated the Intelligence Community that it’s impossible to distinguish their work from the government’s. Although the President’s Daily Brief has the seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, it is misleading. For full disclosure, the PDB really should look more like NASCAR with corporate logos plastered all over it.

Theoretically, if a corporation wanted to manipulate the national security agenda, it could introduce something into the system and no one would realize what’s happening, particularly since these companies have analysts and often intelligence collectors spread throughout the system. For argument’s sake, let’s say a company is frustrated with a government that’s hampering its business or business of one of its clients.

Introducing and spinning intelligence on that government’s suspected collaboration with terrorists would quickly get the White House’s attention and could be used to shape national policy. To get us into the Iraq war, manipulation of intelligence regarding alleged weapons of mass destruction had to be very artfully done to short-circuit a formidable bureaucracy designed to prevent just such warping of intelligence. Due to the shift toward wide-scale industrial outsourcing in the Intelligence Community, that safeguard has been eroded.

Solutions are readily available.  There’s really no need to move this service from the private sector back into government. The tools are already there in the private sector that could be applied, at least in concept, to monitor for any suspicious activity.

It’s a matter of leadership by the DNI.
_____________________________________________________________
Booz Allen Hamilton Personnel

    * Ralph W. Shrader - Chairman and CEO
    * R. James Woolsey, Jr. - Vice President (however not on BAH web site)
    * Dennis O. Doughty - Worldwide Technology Business President
    * Daniel C. Lewis - Worldwide Commerical Business President
    * Mark J. Gerencser - Senior Vice President (co-leads Global Strategic Security Practice)
    * Keith Oliver - Senior Vice President
    * Bruce Pasternack - Senior Vice President
    * Peter Heckmann - Vice President
    * Mike McConnell - Vice President, former director of the NSA
    * Dermot Shorten - Vice President

Source

James Woolsey, Former Director of the CIA

Yale graduate. A long-time supporter of war on Iraq and PNAC and Jinsa member, the former director of the CIA has been named as the likely minister of information in the new Iraq. His business interests have included: the arms company British Aerospace; the Titan Corporation, which provides military interpreters and DynCorp, which provides bodyguards for Hamid Karzai, the Afghani president and has installed a police force monitoring service in Bosnia. DynCorp is being sued for human rights violations in Bosnia, environmental health disasters in Ecuador and fraud in America.

He was a partner in the law firm, Shea and Gardner, which acts as foreign agents for the Iraqi National Congress, led by Chalabi. He is vice-president of Booz Allen Hamilton, a corporate consultant firm, which won a contract to develop a computer model of post-war Iraqi society after the first Gulf war I. Booz Allen is also closely linked to the DPB. He said that "only fear will re-establish [Arab] respect for us ... we need a little bit of Machiavelli''. He has also said: "We really don't need the Europeans. Anyway's, they will be the first in line patting us on the back following our success and saying they were with us all along.'

Source

Last Updated: March 19, 2008

Former CIA director James Woolsey strongly advocated for war in Iraq – and then turned his political beliefs into millions for his corporate employers including national security contractor Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. In the past, he’s sat on the boards of major contractors like British Aerospace, Inc., DynCorp., and Titan, Inc. notorious for its role in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. Woolsey’s a big player in the defense world, who’s served on most of the significant national security commissions and boards.

Woolsey started his career as a lawyer for the U.S. Senate committee on Armed Services in 1970. Three years later, he joined the Washington, D.C.-based firm Shea & Gardner, where he is still a partner as of the end of 2007. From 1977-1979 Woolsey served at Undersecretary of the Navy. In 1989, he became Ambassador to the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. His highest profile government position was Director of Central Intelligence from 1993-95. Since then, he’s been in the private sector, working again at Shea & Gardner and, in 2002, joining the consulting firm Booz Allen.

As an executive at these companies, he’s urged Pentagon officials to invade Iraq for many years. In 2002, he founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a private advocacy group, supported by the White House to build public support for the war. Woolsey is also on the Defense Policy Board, an unpaid advisory panel serving then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials. He’s also a member of the neo-con think tank Project for a New American Century, and a signatory alongside high-profile Bush administration officials on a 1998 letter urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Through these companies, he has profited from his public positions. As a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, Woolsey was a featured speaker in May 2003 at a conference co-sponsored by the company at which about 80 corporate executives and others paid up to $1,100 to hear about the economic outlook and business opportunities in Iraq. He’s also a managing partner at Paladin Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in homeland security infrastructure.

His wife, Suzanne Woolsey, is a trustee of a little-known arms consulting group. In January 2004, she joined the board of Fluor Corp., which quickly won about $1.6 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts. Fluor has a history of scandal and abuse, including repeated claims of overcharging. In 2001, Fluor paid $8.5 million to the Defense Department in 2001 to settle charges it improperly billed the government for work benefiting its commercial clients. Fluor is at least half owned by Osama bin Laden’s brother Yeslam.

In 1998 Senate testimony, Woolsey stated that billionaire Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz was a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Bin Mahfouz later sued several newspapers that printed the allegation for libel. Woosley later denied that he meant to reference bin Mahfouz, saying that he was talking about a “Mr. Hafouz.” However, other remarks in his testimony suggested that he meant bin Mahfouz. Mahfouz was an early  investor in George W. Bush's energy companies.

As of the end of 2007, Woolsey is a board member at the following:

    * Information Systems Laboratories, Inc: BOSCH Aerospace, a division of the large national security contractor, supplied several variants of a DARPA-sponsored surveillance rapid air inflated tower (RAFT) to US Army forces in Iraq in 2003.

    * Linsang Partners: In June of 2003, Linsang Partners Manufacturing was selected by Voxtec, a Division of Marine Acoustics, to manufacture the Phraselator 2, a handheld translation device used by the US  Special  Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    * Fibersense Technology Corporation: Acquired by major Iraq defense contractor Northrupt Grumman in 2002. Northrop Grumman’s Vinnell Corp. subsidiary was awarded a $48 million contract to train the new Iraqi Army last year. Northrop Grumman has been penalized $191.7 million in the past four years, including $750,000 paid to the Pentagon in 2000 in a case involving allegations of providing faulty replacement parts for the JSTARS airborne surveillance system.

Woolsey is a past board member of:

    * DynCorp. (1988-1989): On April 18, 2003, DynCorp International won a contract from the U.S. Department of State to provide up to 1,000 civilian advisers to help organize civilian law enforcement, judicial and correctional agencies. The estimated value could be as high as $50 million for the first year. In Afghanistan, the company received a contract of a maximum of $82,263,898 by mid-July 2003 to provide security services. Private equity firm Veritas Capital bought DynCorp in 2005 for $850 million. Veritas also purchased defense contractor MZM from defense contractor Mitchell Wade, implicated in the Rep. Wade Cunningham bribery scandal. MZM was renamed Athena Innovative Solutions.

    * Titan Corporation (1983-1989): Titan is a multi-billion dollar defense contractor, now owned by Symatic, an information security company with ties to Bush brother Marvin Bush. As part of a $402 million contract, Titan has more than 4,400 linguists assisting the U.S. government's reconstruction and counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. Major General Antonio Taguba implicated two Titan employees in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

    * British Aerospace, Inc. (1992-1993): Merged Marconi Electronic Systems (MES) in 1999 to form BAE Systems Inc., the world’s fourth-largest military contractor and the only foreign Pentagon supplier to crack the top 10. In June BAE received a $180 million Foreign Military Sales delivery order to manufacture 378 Iraqi Light Armored Vehicles (ILAV). The total value of contract could reach $445.4 million. In December 2005, BAE picked up a $4.7 million contract from the US Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). In 2006, BAE partnered with Carlyle Group, a private equity firm with strong Bush family ties, to spin-out its imaging business into a company called Fairchild Imaging.

Sources

    * “Consultants Profit From Their Pentagon Ties,” The Los Angeles Times, 8/15/04.

    * “Top Investigator in 9/11 Victims Lawsuit Faces Libel Trial,” The Lost Angeles Times, 2/26/03.

    * “IRAQ: 10 US Contractors Penalized,” Associated Press, 4/26/04.

    * “Windfalls of War,” Center for Public Integrity.

    * “British Arms Merchant With Passport to the Pentagon,” The New York Times, 8/16/06.

    * “Advocates of War Now Profit from 
Iraq's Reconstruction,” Los Angeles Times, 7/14/04.

“The midnight ride of James Woolsey,” Salon, 12/20/02
_____________________________________________________________
Dirty Dozen Annex

This research was developed in coordination with the Secure World Foundation.

    * AeroAstro
    * Aerojet
    * Aerospace Corporation
    * Analytical Graphics, Inc.
    * Andrews Space
    * Ball Aerospace
    * Booz Allen Hamilton
    * Carlyle Group
    * Computer Sciences Corporation
    * Davidson Technologies
    * Honeywell
    * L-3 Communications
    * Microcosm, Inc.
    * MicroSat Systems, Inc.
    * Miltec Corporation
    * Octant Technologies
    * Orbital Sciences Corporation
    * Rafael Aramament Development Authority Ltd.
    * Schafer Corporation
    * Science Applications International Cooperation (SAIC)
    * SI International
    * Space Development Corporation (SpaceDev)
    * Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX)
    * Surrey Satellite Technology Limited

AeroAstro

Though it was founded only in 1988 and employs about 60 people, AeroAstro manages to contribute significantly to the weaponization of space. It specializes in the development of microsatellites and nanospacecraft. One of AeroAstro’s current projects is the Air Force-funded Escort program. Escort satellites carry sensors and lightweight missiles to defend distant satellites against an anti-satellite  (ASAT) attack. They can permanently or temporarily disable large satellites that appear threatening.  Of course, the technology used to defend against an ASAT attack is the same technology necessary to conduct an ASAT attack, illustrating the fine line between defensive and offensive ASAT systems.

Programs and Products:
- Escort program
- Microsatellites
 
Headquarters: Ashburn, VA
Website: http://www.aeroastro.com/

Aerojet

Aerojet is a major space and defense contractor specializing in missile and space propulsion and precisicion tactical weapon systems. It works on ramjet and scramjet propulsion for missiles, and is developing combined cycle propulsion for hypersonic cruise and space access applications. Founded in 1942, Aerojet's first product—Jet Assist Take Off rocket motors—provide launch power for US military planes during World War II. During the 1950s and 1960s, Aerojet built the  world's largest site for rocket engine development, testing, and production at a facility near Sacramento, California.

This site is now Aerojet's headquarters, and is a site of missile and space propulsion operations. In the 1970s and 1980s, Aerojet worked primarily in the field of space electronics, including satellite sensors for weather forecasting and missile detection. It also developed specialized warheads, air-dispensed munitions systems,medium-caliber ammunition, and "smart" weapons for use against tanks and other armored vehicles. In 2001, Aerojet bought General Dynamics' Space Systems and Atlantic Research Corporation, adding to weight to their already heavy hand in the aerospace industry. Today, Aerojet "is well-positioned to benefit from the increased focus on and funding of defense and space programs."

Programs and Products:
- Common Aero Vehicle/Hypersonic Technology Vehicle
- Defense Support Program
- Force Appication and Launch from Continental United States (FALCON)
- Hypersonic Demonstrator Aircraft
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor
- Multiple Kill Vehicle Payload System
- Standard Missile-3
- Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

Headquarters: Sacramento, CA
Website: http://www.aerojet.com/

Aerospace Corporation

Founded in 1960, Aerospace Corporation is a federally-funded research and development center that supports military and commercial space programs. It was created by the US Air Force Ballistic Missile Division to “serve the Air Force in the scientific and technical planning and management of its missile space programs.” In the 1960s to the 1990s, Aerospace supported programs such as the Advanced Ballistic Rentry System, the Defense Satellite Communications Systems, the Defense Support Program, and anti-satellite technology tests.

Today, it provides support to the Defense Support Program, the Space Based Infrared System program, the Space Based Surveillance System, the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, and the Airborne Laser program. Aerospace Corporation also evaluates technical and financial implications of emerging military and commercial space launch systems, including the Force Application and Launch from Continental United States (FALCON) program, which is working on the Common Aero Vehicle - now the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle. (See Schafer Corporation for more information on the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle.)  Aerospace Corporation has also provided development support for the Operationally Responsive Spacelift, which will allow the US Air Force to rapidly put payload-bearing spacecraft into orbit and maneuver the spacecraft to any point in space.

Programs and Products:
- Airborne Laser
- Common Aero Vehicle/Hypersonic Technology Vehicle
- Defense Support Program
- Force Appication and Launch from Continental United States (FALCON)
- Operationally Responsive Spacelift
- Space Based Infrared System
- Spaced Based Surveillance System
- Space Tracking and Surveillance System

Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $2,494,160,391
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $11,988 (Democrat), $26,995 (Republican)
Headquarters: El Segundo, CA
Website: http://www.aero.org/

Analytical Graphics, Inc.

Analytical Graphics, Inc. provides software to national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets.  Its products support applications in battlespace management, geospatial intelligence, space systems, and national defense programs, and its software is used in projects such as the Airborne Laser, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Weapon System, Space Tracking and Surveillance System, and Kinetic Energy Interceptor.  The Satellite Tool Kit  developed by Analytical Graphics is a program for simulation and visualization of space and missile operations.

Programs and Products:
- Airborne Laser
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor
- Space Tracking and Surveillance System
- Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

Headquarters: Exton, PA
Website: http://www.stk.com/

Andrews Space

Founded in 1999, Andrews Space provides space systems technology for the Department of Defense and NASA.  It has worked on projects such as the Operationally Responsive Spacelift, and the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle, Common Aero Vehicle, and Small Launch Vehicle for the FALCON weapons system.

Programs and Products:
- Common Aero Vehicle/Hypersonic Technology Vehicle
- Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle
- Operationally Responsive Spacelift
- Small Launch Vehicle

Headquarters: Seattle, WA
Website: http://www.andrews-space.com/

Ball Aerospace

Ball Aerospace is owned by Ball Corporation, a metal and plastic packaging supplier.  Ball Aerospace was formed in 1956 by a group of scientists from the University of Colorado to build controls for miltary rockets. It was later given a contract to build one of NASA’s first spacecraft, the Orbiting Solar Observatory. Ball now provides imaging, communications, and information technologies to the aerospace defense industry. It is part of Boeing’s Orbital Express team, which intends to demonstrate autonomous techniques for on-orbit refueling, reconfiguration, and repair of satellites.

Ball provided Northrop Grumman’s Tactical High Energy Laser team with beam alignment and stabilization assembly. This team has demonstrated that directed energy weapons can successfully track and destroy multiple missies in flight.  Ball is also working on Northrop Grumman’s Kinetic Energy Interceptor project and Space Based Surveillance System.  It nearly doubled its sales in the last five years, to $672.3 million in sales in 2006, and employs about 3000 people.

Programs and Products:
- Boeing Orbital Express System
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor
- Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser
- Space Based Surveillance System

Headquarters: Boulder, CO
Website: http://www.ballaerospace.com/

Booz Allen Hamilton

Booz Allen is a global consulting firm with more than 18,000 employees on six continents. It is currently conducting a study for the US government on its space industrial base to determine the industry’s capabilities and viability over the next 15 years.  Booz Allen also receives contracts for specific missile defense and space weapon projects.  For example, it provides performance analysis and systems engineering and integration for Northrop Grumman’s Kinetic Energy Interceptor project, and support on the Missile Defense Agency’s project to test the national missiles defense system.

Programs and Products:
- Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor

Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $3,031,707,940
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $43,020 (Democrat), $162,650 (Republican)
Headquarters: McLean, VA
Website: http://www.boozallen.com/

Carlyle Group

Carlyle Group is a private investment firm that “invests in the opporunities created in industries strongly affected by changes in government policies.” It has tred controversial waters since its inception, employing high-profile people with political connections.  The Bush family in particular has strong connections to the firm. It has been noted that George W. Bush will be able to benefit financially from his own administration’s decisions, through his father’s investments.  Carlyle is the leading private equity investor in the aerospace and defense industries, completing 23 transaction representing a combined purchase total of more than $7.4 billion.

Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $9,334,962,462
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $507,821 (Democrat), $1,132,124 (Republican)
Headquarters: Washington, DC
Website: http://www.carlyle.com/eng/index.html

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)

CSC is a major Department of Defense contractor for missile defense engineering, software development, and systems integration, and has held contracts with the Missile Defense Agency since 1988. Under a $250 million contract, CSC engineered the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System software in 2005. The software guides interceptors to incoming ballistic missiles. Currently, Aegis Weapon Systems software is on 68 US Navy cruisers and destroyers stationed around the world, and there are plans to install the system on an additional 18 destroyers.  CSC was also contracted to provide scientific, engineering, and technical support to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program.

Programs and Products:
- Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System
- Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
 
Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $6,789,832,719
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $91,540 (Democrat), $243,900 (Republican)
Headquarters: El Segundo, CA
Website: http://www.csc.com/

Davidson Technologies Inc.

Founded in 1996, Davidson Technologies provides management, technical, and engineering services to the government and to missile defense prime contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon. The President of Davidson Technologies, Dr. Julian Davidson, was the first Director of the Advanced Ballistic Missile Defense Agency responsible for all US ballistic missile defense advanced technology development. After leaving the government, he held management positions with Science Applications International Corporation and Booz Allen Hamilton. He was also a chairman of the Technology Assessment Committee of the US Space Command.

Programs and Products:
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor
- Medium Extended Air Defense System
- Miniature Kill Vehicle
- Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile
- Space Based Infrared System
- Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Weapon System

Headquarters: Huntsville, AL
Website: http://www.davidson-tech.com/

Honeywell

Honeywell Space Systems designs, developes, and produces control systems and subsystems for satellites, launch vehicles, missile defense, and strategic missiles. As a component supplier for various defense projects, Honeywell’s products include navigation systems for satellites, electronics, satellite launchers, and missile defense boosters. It has participated in many Boeing and Orbital Sciences missile defense projects, and hopes to extend into the Japanese missile defense industry. With over $1 billion in space- and missile defense-related sales per year, Honeywell is the largest non-prime contractor in the aerospace industry.

Programs and Products:
- Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
- Airborne Laser
- Boeing Orbital Express System
- Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
- Space-Based Infrared System
- Standard Missile-3

Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $6,135,622,361
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $348,577 (Democrat), $809,134 (Republican)
Headquarters: Phoenix, AZ
Website: http://www.honeywell.com/

L-3 Communications

L-3 is a prime contractor in command, control, and communications, and surveillance and reconnaissance for many industries, including missile defense. It provides sensor and instrumentation design, system integration, and aircraft modification to the US ballistic missile defense system.  In 2001, L-3 purchased Coleman Research, which specializes in making targets that are used to simulate incoming warheads in missile defense tests.  In 2005, L-3 absorbed Titan Corporation, which is an IT firm that, among other things, produces targeting systems for missile defense. This acquition made L-3 the sixth largest defense contractor in the US.

Programs and Products:
- Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
- Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
- Standard Missile-3
- Vertical Launching System

Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $5,233,392,435
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $155,850 (Democrat). $185,710 (Republican)
Headquarters: New York, NY
Website: http://www.l-3.com; http://www.titan.com/

Microcosm, Inc.

Established in 1984, Microcosm is a space systems engineering firm that specializes in reducing space mission costs. Microcosm developed the Scorpius family of liquid-fueled small rockets for the Pentagon under a $25 million per year contract. Microcosm’s Sprite Mini-Lift vehicle, part of the Scorpius family, is designed to be launched on eight hours’ notice. US Air Force Brig. Gen. Simon “Pete” Worden, who is in charge of briefing the Pentagon on this initiative, has said that small communication and reconnaissance satellites, and weapons for striking in space or on the ground, are among the possible payloads for quick reaction launchers such as Sprite.  It is contracted to develop a Small Launch Vehicle for the FALCON program.

Programs and Products:
- Force Application and Launch from Continental United States (FALCON)
- Small Launch Vehicle

Headquarters: El Segundo, CA
Website: http://www.smad.com/ns/nsframessr3.html

MicroSat Systems, Inc.

Founded in 2001, MicroSat is a small business that designs, builds, integrates, tests, and operates satellites. It also builds spacecraft subsystems, such as data storage and solar arrays. MicroSat's primary focus is on small satellite systems that enable multiple satellites to be launched as secondary payloads on larger launch vehicles, or single satellites on smaller space launch vehicles, for one quarter to one tenth the cost of launching conventional satellites.

Programs and Products:
- Microsatellites

Headquarters: Littleton, CO
Website: http://www.microsatsystems.com/

Miltec Corporation

Miltec specializes in the design, development, integration, and testing of missiles and aerospace technologies. Miltecs’ Kinetic Warhead Evaluation is computer code that predicts damage to a ballistic missile payload from interaction with a Kinetic Energy Weapon. Miltec also provides a variety of optics and electronics analysis, design, integration, and test capabilities for infrared systems and lasers, supporting various segments of the US missile defense system.

Programs and Products:
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor
- Ground-based Midcourse Defense System

Headquarters: Huntsville, AL
Website: http://www.miltecmissiles.com/

Octant Technologies

Since 1997, Octant has provided engineering services to aerospace companies and the US government on all aspects of control systems design, simulation, and implementation, with an emphasis on spacecraft systems. Octant was responsible for the flight software, mission simulator, and onboard guidance, navigation, and control for both the [Experimental Spacecraft System] XSS-10 and XSS-11 projects.

Programs and Products:
- Experimental Spacecraft System-10 (XSS-10)
- Experimental Spacecraft System-11 (XSS-11)

Headquarters: San Jose, CA
Website: http://www.octanttech.com/

Orbital Sciences Corporation

Orbital was founded in 1982 to “make space technology more affordable, accessible, and useful to millions of people on Earth.” Since then, Orbital has helped develop space technology that endangers civil space assets and makes outer space less accessible to people on Earth. Over the last ten years, Orbital has provided launch vehicles for various US missile defense systems, including the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, the Experimental Satellite System-11 (XSS-11), and the Space-Based Surveillance System.

Orbital also built the Orbital Boost Vehicle, which is used in the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. It is designed to intercept and destroy long-range enemy missiles while they are in flight.  Orbital also designs, builds, and launches target vehicles for programs such as the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Weapon System, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program, and Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile Intercept missile defense programs.  Target vehicles are “threat simulators” used to test missile defense systems.  Orbital also designed, built, and launched the Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology space vehicle under a $47 million NASA contract.

The technology developed here will allow spacecraft to rendezvous with other spacecraft without human interaction.   As with the XSS-11 microsatellite, the capacity that enables spacecraft to maneuver around others to service them can also allow it to destroy them.  The debris created by such collisions cluters outer space and inadvertently destroys other space assets. With its range of products, Orbital isn’t really making space affordable to “millions of people” so much as it is capitalizing on the global space market, which exceeds billions of dollars each year.

Programs and Products:
- Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
- Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology
- Experimental Satellite System-11 (XSS-11)
- Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor
- Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile Intercept
- Orbital Boost Vehicle
- Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile
- Space-Based Surveillance System
- Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Weapon System

Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $606,017,074
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $47,500 (Democrat), $313,948 (Republican)
Headquarters: Dulles, VA
Website: http://www.orbital.com/

Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd.

Rafael is a former subdivision of the Isralie Ministry of Defense and is considered a governmental firm. Rafael’s space systems division develops and manufactures propulsion systems for micro- and minisatellites. Rafael has partnered with Raytheon to develop a missile defense interceptor for the Israel Defense Forces. The design for the kinetic energy interceptor is based on Lockheed Martin’s PAC-3 missile. The partnership allows Raytheon to ensure the interceptor is compatible with the US military’s missile defense systems, thus providing the US with a low-cost air defense option for the future.

Programs and Products:
- Israeli Short Range Missile Defense program
- Microsatellites

Headquarters: Haifa, Israela
Website: http://www.rafael.co.il/

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

SAIC does everything from intelligence gathering to missile defense studies to Iraq-related work for the Pentagon. A research and engineering company, SAIC works on national and homeland security projects as well as having its hands in energy, environment, space, telecommunications, health care and logistics contracts. About two-thirds of its contracts come from the federal government. They do not do windows.

The company is proud to be “employee-owned.” For some of us that conjures up images of cooperative bookshops, cafes and the Green Bay Packers. But for SAIC “employee-owned” means no investor scrutiny, less public information and limited government accountability. The company boasted more than $7 billion in revenues in 2004 and employees 43,000 people in 150 cities, according to their press releases.

In 2000, the San Diego based company drew in $1.5 billion in Pentagon contracts, making it the 10th largest recipient of military dollars. In 2004, SAIC was number 8, with $2.5 billion in contracts. The one word explanation for a billion dollar increase over four years? Iraq.

Iraq, SAIC’s Stomping Grounds

Along with the Lincoln Group and SYColeman, SAIC was recently awarded a 5-year $300 million contract to boost the U.S. image abroad. The three companies (including Lincoln, which made headlines in the last few months for their $100 million contract with the Pentagon to write articles favorable to the U.S. occupation and place them in Iraqi newspapers bearing Iraqi bylines) will develop slogans, advertisements, newspaper articles, radio spots and TV programs aimed at building support for US policies overseas.

According to a June 18, 2005 San Diego Union Tribune article, the propaganda effort will target “higher threat areas such as Iraq and Lebanon” and will be aimed at garnering “support for U.S. government policies and objectives in foreign countries among foreign audiences.” Not only will SAIC and the other companies generate media, they also plan to distribute “novelty items” like t-shirts and bumper stickers.

This is not SAIC’s first foray into the world of international propaganda. In 2003, the company was awarded a no-bid contract from Joint Psychological Operations Support, a wing of the Pentagon, to run the Iraqi Free Media Program. Handpicked to head the $80 million program by L. Paul Bremer (then-head of the Coalition Provisional Authority), the company has no news operations experience. Investigators from the Pentagon later found that the network- which included television, radio and newspapers- was mismanaged and opted not to renew SAIC’s contract.

In the lead up to the U.S. invasion, SAIC got to contract to help establish the Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council. This group of about 150 Iraqi-born U.S. citizens came to Baghdad in May 2003 to serve as the “Iraqi face” of the occupation authority. There they were groomed for leadership of 23 key Iraqi ministries after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Members of the IRDC were officially employed by SAIC because, as a Pentagon spokesperson explained, it was better to have them working out of SAIC's offices prior to the U.S. intervention because it would be awkward if they had Pentagon phone numbers. The IRDC was dissolved along with the Coalition Provisional Authority when “sovereignty” was turned over to Iraq.

The company is also a subcontractor on Vinnell’s bid to train Iraqi police and security forces. The $48 million sole-source contract was awarded in June 2003 to Vinnell, a subsidiary of military behemoth Northrop Grumman. Under the contract, Vinnell was given a year to train nine 900-troop battalions for the Iraqi army, with an option to train all 27 battalions if it performed well. Two and a half years later, the training of Iraqi security forces remains an unfinished problem at which the Pentagon throws money.

Deep Ties to Washington

Duane Andrews, a SAIC executive vice president and chief operating officer is a former Pentagon official, who oversaw CIA budgets as assistant secretary of defense. In February 2005, SAIC’s vice president Christopher Ryan Henry took a trip through Washington’s revolving door, entering the Pentagon’s E-Ring as a senior policy official.

Former SAIC CEO Wayne Downing, a retired army general and former head of Special Operations Command, has his own connections to Iraq as a former lobbyist for the Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. He left SAIC to take Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld up on an offer to assessing SOC and offer suggestions for improving the force. Ken C. Dahlberg replaced Downing as CEO.

David Kay served as a SAIC vice president until October 2002. There he coordinated homeland security and counter-terrorism initiatives, going so far as to claim that Iraq could launch a terror attack at the U.S. mainland. But, the siren call of public service proved to be too much for this former United Nations weapons inspector. Kay left SAIC to head the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group, a U.S. effort to discredit UN inspections in Iraq and track down weapons of mass destruction.

Gold Plated Flashlights and Other Projects

In March 2005, SAIC announced a contract from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) to deliver 800 prototype flashlights to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The news release did not mention a price on the contract, but these “high performance” flashlights come with a lot of bells and whistles, including high intensity illumination, dimmable light output, and “O-ring” seals to keep out moisture and dust.

The company has its hands full with other projects as well. In collaboration with Boeing, SAIC is working on the Future Combat System, a massive $92 billion undertaking to revolutionize how soldiers in combat areas receive and act on intelligence. FCS will integrate ground vehicles, sensors and reconnaissance aircraft and link them with ground troops by satellite.

SAIC had a $300 million contract with the Greek government to provide security infrastructure during the 2004 Olympics in Athens.

The above portion of the SAIC report was compiled by Frida Berrigan of the Arms Trade Resource Center of the World Policy Institute in January 2007 for the War Resisters League's WIN Magazine.

Aerospace Contributions

SAIC’s involvement with the aerospace industry ranges from space station and shuttle safety contracts with NASA to engineering and software contracts with private companies and US government agencies on missile defense and space weapon technology.  SAIC worked on both the Experimental Spacecraft Satellite-10 and –11 (XSS-10 and XSS-11) microsatellites, developed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin respectively. SAIC is also a systems engineering subcontractor on the Kinetic Energy Interceptor project.

In 2004, SAIC was given an $18 million extention on their contract from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to conduct a study into the feasibility of integrating NATO’s various missile defense systems.  Not surprisingly, after determining that the integration was possible, SAIC received a $95 million contract to design and operate the integration procedures.  Duane P. Andrews, Executive Vice-President of SAIC, was part of Rumsfeld’s commission on national security uses of space.  This commission argued the US should avoid international agreements that limit the deployment of weapons in space, and that the US needs to “develop the capability for power projection in, from, and through space.”  SAIC’s missile defense contracts more than tripled between 2001 and 2004, from $47 million to $169 million.

Programs and Products:
- Experimental Spacecraft Satellite-10 (XSS-10)
- Experimental Spacecraft Satellite-11 (XSS-11)
- Kinetic Energy Interceptor

Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $10,598,835,883
Campaign Contributions, 1998-2003: $773,913 (Democrat), $1,339,501 (Republican)
Headquarters: San Diego, CA
Website: http://www.saic.com/

SI International

SI provides information technology and networking solutions to the US military in areas of space and missile defense systems engineering, military satellite communications, command and control systems, and net-centric warfare technology. It’s goal is to design integrated information systems that can “extend US dominance in the exploitation of space.” Customers  include the Missile Defense Agency, Air Force Space Command, and NORAD.

Programs and Products:
- Ground-based Midcourse Defense System

Headquarters: Reston, VA
Website: http://www.si-intl.com/

Space Development Corporation (SpaceDev)

SpaceDev, founded in 1997, designs, manufactures, markets, and operates micro- and nanosatellites, hybrid rocket-based orbital manueuvering and orbital transfer vehicles, and sub-orbital and orbital hybrid rocket-based propulsion systems. SpaceDev has been awarded contracts by NASA, Boeing, the Missile Defense Agency, and the US Air Force.

Programs and Products:
- Microsatellites

Headquarters: Poway, CA
Website: http://www.spacedev.com/

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX)

SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles that will “reduce the cost and increase the reliability of space assets”. Established in 2002 by the founder of PayPal and Zip2 Corporation, SpaceX has already developed two launch vehicles and been awarded a $100 million contract to launch satellites on its Falcon rockets for the US Air Force’s DARPA/FALCON program. It is also contracted to develop a Small Launch Vehicle for FALCON.

Programs and Products:
- Force Application and Launch from Continental United States (FALCON)
- Small Launch Vehicle

Headquarters: El Segundo, CA
Website: http://www.spacex.com/

Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL)

SSTL was formed in 1985 by the University of Surrey to commercialize the results of its small satellite engineering research. It has taken part in 23 small satellite missions, from concept development to in-orbit operations.  In 2000, SSTL built SNAP-1, a nanosatellite capable of “inspecting” other satellites in-orbit – in testing, SNAP-1 came within nine meters of another satellite and took pictures. SSTL insists its satellites are for peaceful uses only, “although its collaboration with the Chinese government on the 2000 mission has raised a few eyebrows among US military officials, prompting some to speculate on whether China is secretly developing ‘parasitic satellites’ as space weapons.”

Programs and Products:
- Microsatellites

Headquarters: Guildford, UK (University of Surrey)
Website: http://www.sstl.co.uk/

These profiles were researched and compiled by Ray Acheson of Reaching Critical Will
in coordination with the Secure World Foundation.

[ES]

You do great research. why not have this stickied and posted in the 911 section along with the ptech stuff so its there when one of us might need it. ask a mod.

[One Revelator]

Hey AI,

Here's another little gem not mentioned above.  From their own website.

06-10-2004
BAE SYSTEMS RECEIVES $35 MILLION FOR HAARP PROGRAM 
WASHINGTON -- The Office of Naval Research has awarded BAE Systems a $35.4 million contract to manufacture 132 high frequency (HF) transmitters for installation in the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program's (HAARP) phased array antenna system. The contract was finalized April 19 with BAE Systems Information & Electronic Warfare Systems in Washington, D.C. 

Rest of the press release here:
http://www.na.baesystems.com/releasesDetail.cfm?a=170

[Anti_Illuminati]

Source

The following outfits have locations in Fairfax County, VA (location of Falls Church * see links at end of text - taken from this link):

Boeing Autometric, Inc.
Booz Allen Hamilton
Mitretek Systems
National Imagery & Mapping Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
Northrop Grumman Information Technology
SAIC
SI International
The MITRE Corporation

Let's take a look at these one at a time.

Boeing Automatic MUST have to do with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's), which is the predominant new tool used on September 11, 2001. They are so good at what they do that NOW they can't keep unmanned aerial vehicles on the shelf. As well, some three weeks after 9-11, China bought FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS worth of those very jets.

Booz, Allen, & Hamilton produced the most recent director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) who was took his job one month before 9-11. Booz-Allen also has connections to Ptech, a company that was investigated regarding 9-11 but that story was squashed. Ptech also had/has connections to Mitre Corporation which is heavily implicated in 9-11.



Mitretek [INSERT: Now Noblis] is, like Mitre Corporation, a spinoff of MIT's Lincoln Laboratories. Seems MIT was, during the time, spawning devil children left and right. NIMA (the "eyes of the nation") seems to have been key to pulling off 9-11 as the data provided for real time processing, as Mitre Corp.'s AMSTE program promises to do, come mostly from NIMA.

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) put a satellite in orbit on September 8, 2001 and three days later, miraculously, they would be conducting a joint "simulation" of just the sort of events that transpired during Operation Two Towers. I can't wait for some Saudi-hacker theory.

Northrop Grumman is the originator of Global Hawk systems (a system of remote pilotting). SAIC, like Mitre Corporation and TRW (NRO contractor), have had on their boards one John Deutch. SI International provides information management for USSPACECOM (NORAD) and USSTRATCOM. See the following snips:

SI International, Inc., an information technology and network solutions (IT) company, announced today that it has a subcontract with SAIC, under the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Systems and Missions Support (USAMS) Blanket Purchase Agreement contract (BPA). The company will provide technical engineering and analysis services that support the information operations mission at Headquarters U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, NE. Click here for more.

June 9, 2003: S.I. International Inc. of Reston won a contract valued at $24 million over eight years from the Defense Department to provide military communications satellite engineering, analysis and database support. For more click here.

As a technical support contractor for Headquarters AFSPC, Headquarters United States Space Command (USSPACECOM), Headquarters North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), SI International has established itself as a recognized industry expert in military space systems and C4ISR operational architecture development and maintenance. For more click here.


"The AEHF program is the next generation of highly secure, high capacity, survivable communications to the U.S. warfighters during all levels of conflict, and will become the protected backbone of the Department of Defense's military satellite communications architecture. It is slated for launch in 2007 (illustration only)"

.....the militarization of space is intimately linked with US strategic nuclear forces, for the previous command covering space, known as Space Command, has merged with the command responsible for nuclear forces, Strategic Command. Upon merger, the commander of Strategic Command stated, "United States Strategic Command provides a single war fighting combatant command with a global perspective, focused on exploiting the strong and growing synergy between the domain of space and strategic capabilities." For more click here.

SI International, Inc., an information technology and network solutions (IT) company, announced today that it has a subcontract with SAIC, under the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Systems and Missions Support (USAMS) Blanket Purchase Agreement contract (BPA). The company will provide technical engineering and analysis services that support the information operations mission at Headquarters U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, NE.

........For more than twelve years, SI International has served as a contractor for the military space community including Headquarters North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Headquarters Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), Headquarters Army Space Command (ARSPACE), and United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) - now United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In addition, SI International has supported the Spacelift Range Systems, Range Standardization and Automation, military satellite communication (Milsatcom) systems, and the Air Force Satellite Control Network since 1996. For more click here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END SNIPS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SAIC, of course, keeps turning up in searches related to John Deutch, Mitre Corporation, TRW, and other outfits associated with the satellite technologies needed to pull off 9-11, the same technologies (dontcha know) that SI International works on.

SI International, with its contracts with USSPACECOM and USSTRATCOM, would seem to have had to been key in Operation Two Towers. USSTRATCOM was where Warren Buffet sat with several CEO's from the WTC on September 11 and it is where Bush flew to immediately upon being told of the attacks. [Sources 1 & 2] Warren Buffet, by the way, is a peddler of Global Hawk systems (remote pilotting) with two companies, Mitre Corporation (a non-profit - ? - with its roots in MIT's Lincoln Laboratories) and Berkshire-Hathaway, producer of BizJets and NetJets, planes that many of the rich and powerful fly in. USSPACECOM (NORAD) is responsible for preventing anything like 9-11 from happening which they have always been excellent at except when it counted. Sounds rather conspiratorial TO ME.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SNIPS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In July 2002 SI International received a four and one-half year, $1.9 million award to provide technical, engineering, and consulting services in support of the Headquarters Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) Military Satellite Communications Systems Division. As the prime contractor, SI International supports the transition and conversion from current satellite communication systems to Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and the National Strategic Satellite Communications System (NSSS). SI International will provide technical analysis, consulting and engineering assistance services in support of AFSPC; guidance on the Transformational Communications Study (TCS); and, transition and terminal interoperability analysis for the NSSS Implementation plan. Specifically, SI International will develop a NSSS network transition plan highlighting critical paths and design a satellite communications system transition database. For more click here.

The SBR system is a transformational system for DoD and national intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. SBR is designed to deliver extraordinary capability to gain real-time information on any potential adversary, locale or theater. The system is intended to be able to track moving targets, produce high-resolution synthetic aperture radar images, produce high-resolution terrain information, and to provide data and other radar and radio frequency products. For more click here.

Northrop Grumman IT will provide operations, maintenance and support services to the Air Force Space Command, 21st Space Wing for the three geographically dispersed GEODSS sites: Site 1, at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.; Site 2, on Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory; and Site 3, Maui, Hawaii......These sites are part of Air Force Space Command's optical space surveillance network and conduct deep space surveillance of orbiting space objects in support of U.S. Strategic Command and Air Force Space Command's space control mission. For more click here.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton Awareness

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which oversees the Total Information Awareness System (TIA), awarded 13 contracts to Booz Allen & Hamilton amounting to more than $23 million. Lockheed Martin Corporation had 23 contracts worth $27 million; the Schafer Corporation had 9 contracts totaling $15 million. Other prominent contractors involved in the TIA program include SRS Technologies, Adroit Systems, CACI Dynamic Systems, Syntek Technologies, and ASI Systems International.

~snip~

TIA draws heavily on the private sector. Five of the eight contractors identified by the Center are involved in evaluating future contracts for the program. Grey E. Burkhart, an associate of Booz Allen Hamilton, identifies himself on his resume as “assistant project manager” of TIA system implementation. Even the phrase “Total Information Awareness” has a private pedigree—Visual Analytics, Inc., a Poolesville, Md.-based software developer and DARPA contractor, has applied for a trademark for the phrase.

~

August 8, 2001: Booz, Allen, & Hamilton employee named head of NIMA (the National Imagery and Mapping Agency - the 'eyes of America') http://cartome.org/new-nima.htm

From Biographies: Federal Government: Civilian and Military http://officialnoticesonline.com/bios.html

James R. Clapper named Director of National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet jointly announced the appointment of James R. Clapper Jr. as the new director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) on August 8, 2001. Clapper, who will become the first civilian head of the agency, succeeds Army Lt. Gen. James C. King who has headed NIMA since March 1998 and will be retiring from the Army later this year. Clapper was chosen for the position owing to his grasp of intelligence matters and his knowledge of the needs of NIMA's principal users, the combat commanders. The director has more than 37 years experience in intelligence, working at all levels and phases of the field. He retired from the Air Force in September 1995 as a lieutenant general after a four-year tour as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Since his retirement, he has served successively as executive vice president of Vredenburg, a systems acquisition services company headquartered in Reston, Va.; executive director, military intelligence for Booz, Allen & Hamilton, McLean, Va.; and recently as vice president, director of intelligence programs for SRA, International, Fairfax, Va. He was a senior member of the Downing Assessment Task Force, which investigated the terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in June 1996. NIMA, established in October 1996, is responsible for the collection of imagery through the use of both national and commercial assets. It advises others responsible for collecting imagery using theater and tactical reconnaissance assets. NIMA produces timely imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information in support of the nation's military forces, policymakers, and civil customers.

~

http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1371

The Blessed Relief is no stranger to the CIA or any other US government agency involved in Kosovo. This was one of the "charities" which supported the CIA's "freedom fighters."

    ""Bin Laden’s kind offer of "humanitarian help" in 1994 has been used repeatedly ever since to fund terrorism in Albania. Many terrorists have posed as "humanitarian workers" since. Secret KLA training camps, which the CIA and SAS also used, were created in Northern Albania by Iran and other countries "using Islamic educational institutions and projects for the development of rural communities as a front."

    Back in 1999, "a Saudi government audit acquired by US intelligence showed that 5 of Saudi Arabia’s top business executives ordered the National Commercial Bank (NCB), the kingdom’s largest, to transfer personal funds along with $3 million diverted from a Saudi pension fund to New York and London banks. The money was diverted into the accounts of Islamic charities, including Islamic Relief and Blessed Relief, that serve as fronts for Bin Laden." [Source]

    The company's client list reads like a who's who of the high-tech industry, including companies such as IBM, Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc., Motorola Inc., Sprint Corp. and The Mitre Corp...[Source]

    "Booz-Allen & Hamilton, in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, runs the Saudi Armed Forces Staff College, while O'Gara Protective Services (former U.S. CIA and Secret Service agents) protects the Saudi royal family and their property and provides Saudi forces with security training." [Source]

    ~

    http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1458

    DARPA has hired diversified defense industry giants Lockheed-Martin and Booz Allen & Hamilton for TIA and related projects. Booz Allen has won what may become the largest TIA contract, potentially worth $62 million over the next five years if DARPA exercises all the contract’s options.

    Booz Allen employee Grey E. Burkhart’s resume notes that he is the “assistant program manager for the implementation of an advanced collaborative analysis system for the counterterrorism and intelligence communities,” which he identifies as “Total Information Awareness (TIA) System Implementation.” DARPA spokeswoman Walker told the Center that Burkhart is not an employee of the government.

    Burkhart has had more than 25 years of experience in strategic security, intelligence, and telecommunications. Working in both the private and public sectors he was a career intelligence officer, CEO of Allied Communications Engineering, and has become a “recognized expert on in the global proliferation of information technology.”

    Burkhart’s resume also notes that he was a member of Booz Allen’s Homeland Security Coordination Center and Tiger Team, for which he “conducted analysis of new legislation and executive orders and assessed their impact on current and future business.”

    ~

    The following is from Navy, DOD go full speed ahead on NMCI testing http://www.gcn.com/20_28/news/17111-1.html

    Paul Brubaker, a former Defense deputy chief information officer and now president of the electronic government division of Commerce One in Laurel, Md., recommended stringent independent tests of the system. He said the government should seek an experienced consultant—such as Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. of McLean, Va., or KPMG LLP of New York—to run tests on the $6.9 billion project. NMCI (Navy's Navy/Marine Corps Intranet) is designed to bring 360,000 users on 200 networks into a single intranet.

    ~

    Booz, Allen & Hamilton and Total Information Awareness

    Booz, Allen & Hamilton also has another of its executives 'recognized' by GW.  Her name is Patricia A. Morrissey - this is from People on the Move

    Patricia A. Morrissey will take over Aug. 27 as commissioner of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities in the Health and Human Services Department.

    HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson appointed Morrissey, a senior associate with Booz, Allen, to the post earlier this month.

    Morrissey has worked for both the Senate and House and for President Ronald Reagan during her 26 years in the Washington area.

    In 1999, while working in the Senate, she helped then-Wisconsin Gov. Thompson’s office during the development and passage of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act.

    ~Developmentally disabled people need the human-machine interface too!~

    ~

    From: 9-11: Mitre Corp., Warren Buffet, Global Hawk, and September 11, 2001
    Posted by: souljah on Jan 16, 2003 - 06:14 PM

    The NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) demonstrated its new satellite capabilities (NRO payload launched into space on September 8, 2001) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA - "the eyes of America") gained a new director one month prior to that fateful day. Considering all of this, one gets a pretty clear picture of where all those 'Star Wars' dollars went. James R. Clapper is the man named to head NIMA and he comes from Booz, Allen, & Hamilton which is a client for Blessed Relief, the charity said to be a front for Osama Bin Laden. Booz, Allen, & Hamilton also works closely with DARPA. DARPA is, of course, closely aligned with John Poindexter, head of Total Information Awareness and the guy that called the shots in Iran-Contra.

    ~

    The NRO, September 11, UAV's, Echelon, ARPANET, the NSA, the Israeli Space Agency, NIMA, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, NASA, Ron Sega, Vince Foster, Global Hawk, TIA, Mitre Corp., Star Wars (SDI), Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia (and his satellite investments), and the NMCI. http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1622&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Technoshamanism: Cyber-sorcery and schizophrenia
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E5DC21123
_______________________________________________________________________________
Carlyle Group May Buy Major CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton
by Tim Shorrock , Special to CorpWatch
March 8th, 2008

Source



The Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest private equity funds, may soon acquire the $2 billion government contracting business of consulting giant Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the biggest suppliers of technology and personnel to the U.S. government’s spy agencies. Carlyle manages more than $75 billion in assets and has bought and sold a long string of military contractors since the early 1990s. But in recent years it has significantly reduced its investments in that industry. If it goes ahead with the widely reported plan to buy Booz Allen, it will re-emerge as the owner of one of America’s largest private intelligence armies.

Reports of a potential Carlyle acquisition of Booz Allen’s government unit began circulating among U.S. military contractors in December 2007, after Booz Allen’s senior partners and board members – a group of 300 vice presidents who own the privately-held firm – gathered at company headquarters in McLean, Virginia, for an extraordinary two-day meeting.

According to a December 15 letter to Booz Allen employees from CEO Ralph W. Shrader that was released by the firm, the vice presidents signed off on a “new strategic direction” that would involve separating the company’s commercial and government units and operating them as separate companies. That was widely seen, both inside and outside the company, as a sign that a sale of one or both of the units was imminent. Shrader said the company hoped to come to a resolution of the issues involved by March 31, 2008.

In January 2008, major newspapers – each quoting unnamed people close to the situation – reported that discussions between Booz Allen and Carlyle about the sale of the government unit were underway. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal will be “centered on Booz Allen’s influence in defense and intelligence contracting. If an agreement is reached the sale price will likely be around $2 billion.”

Christopher Ullman, Carlyle’s chief spokesman, could neither confirm nor deny that a deal was in the works, and declined to comment to CorpWatch about the reports. Because of Carlyle’s long experience in the defense sector, he added, such companies “would be a priority for us when the price is right and it’s the right fit for us.” George Farrar, a Booz Allen spokesman, said his company “has refused to discuss particulars of any ongoing discussions” and would not comment beyond what Shrader wrote in his December 15 missive to Booz Allen’s workforce.

Who Is Booz Allen Hamilton?

In 2006, Booz Allen Hamilton, a privately held company based in McLean, Virginia, had a global staff of 18,000 and annual revenues of $3.7 billion. Its work for U.S. government agencies accounts for more than 50 percent of its business. Notably Booz Allen is a key adviser and prime contractor to all of the major U.S. intelligence agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the National Security Agency (NSA),  and – as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Defense and most of the Pentagon’s combatant commands.

On its website, Booz Allen describes its intelligence work as part of its broader expertise in information technology. “Whether dealing with homeland security, peacekeeping operations, or the battlefield, success depend on the ability to collect, safeguard, store, distribute, fuse, and share information – on getting the right information to the right place at the right time,” it says. “Our security professionals work in partnership with clients to develop capabilities … for protecting information and networks against cyber and physical threats.”

That has not always been the case: Booz Allen Hamilton was founded as a management consultancy in 1914 in Chicago by three businessmen whose surnames gave the firm its name. In 1940, after more than three decades of giving advice to top ranking companies in America’s manufacturing and service economy, such as Montgomery Ward, Goodyear Tire and the Illinois State Railroad, Booz Allen started working for the U.S. military, where its clients included the Army, the Navy, and, after the war, the Air Force and the Pentagon.

Its initial contracts with the Navy in 1940 set the pace for its military work: as a management consultant, Booz Allen helped the Navy restructure for World War II and permeated its ranks with contractors (“Each Navy bureau had a Booz rep,” Investors Daily reported in a 2005 profile of the firm). That relationship served as a template for Booz Allen’s later work in intelligence and national security where its personnel worked inside government agencies alongside public employees.

Since the late-1990s, Booz Allen has forged a particularly close relationship with the NSA, the spy agency that monitors global telephone, e-mail and Internet traffic for the U.S. military and political leaders, which hired Booz Allen as its chief outside consultant on Project Groundbreaker. This $4 billion project outsourced the NSA’s internal communications and networking systems to a consortium led by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and the IT subsidiary of Northrop Grumman.

Today, among the many services Booz Allen provides to intelligence agencies, according to its Website, are war-gaming – simulated drills in which military and intelligence officials test their response to potential threats like terrorist attacks – as well as data-mining and analysis of imagery and intelligence picked up by U.S. spy satellites, the design of cryptographic, or code-breaking, systems (an NSA specialty) and “outsourcing/privatization strategy and planning.” The company’s 2007 annual report spells out several other areas of expertise, including “all source analysis,” an intelligence specialty managed by the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) that draws on public sources of information, such as foreign newspapers and textbooks, to add texture to data gathered by spies and electronic surveillance.

According to the company’s annual report, Booz Allen is also working on one of the most important spy initiatives launched in recent years: the Cryptographic Modernization Program. Air Force General John C. Koziol, the commander of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, described this program as an attempt to combine a variety of intelligence technologies to pick up tell-tale signs of chemicals and other substances – into a single electronic package that can be used by combat and special operations commanders to track the enemy.

Booz Allen is a full partner in the project, according to General Koziol, an idea that has been “fully endorsed” by the Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, the nation’s spy chief  – himself a Booz Allen alumnus (see box).

Revolving Door

To carry out its tasks at the intelligence agencies, Booz Allen has hired a dazzling array of former national security officials and foot-soldiers. In 2002, Information Week reported that Booz Allen had more than 1,000 former intelligence officers on its payroll. In 2007, as this reporter was researching a chapter about Booz Allen for his forthcoming book, he asked the company if it could confirm that number or provide a more accurate one, and received an e-mail reply from spokesman George Farrar: “It is certainly possible, but as a privately held corporation we consider that information to be proprietary and do not disclose.”

Buried deep on the company's Web site, however, a much larger number is confirmed in an explanation of a Booz Allen information technology contract with the DIA, which carries out intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It stated that the Booz Allen team “employs more than 10,000 TS/SCI cleared personnel.” TS/SCI stands for top secret-sensitive compartmented intelligence, one of the highest possible security ratings, which would make Booz Allen one of the largest employers of cleared personnel in the United States.

Many of these former intelligence officers at Booz Allen, do the same jobs as they did for the government. For example, Keith Hall, a Booz Allen vice president initially worked in Army intelligence and on one of the congressional intelligence committees. In the early 1990s, he was hired by the CIA to manage budgets and policy development for then-Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates. During that time, he played an instrumental role in creating the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, which was later renamed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. During the Clinton administration, Hall was named Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for space programs and, simultaneously, director of the NRO, the agency that manages the nation’s military satellite program.

Now, as a Booz Allen executive, Hall leads a “strategic intelligence initiative” that integrates the company’s extensive contracting activities for the NRO and the NGA. Recently, one of his most important tasks involved chairing a 2005 homeland security study group that recommended a major expansion of information and data-sharing between U.S. spy agencies that work outside the country and domestic law enforcement, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). “The study’s findings have become a road map for the government in making decisions related to critical information sharing in support of homeland security,” Booz Allen boasts in its 2007 annual report. (See our article, Domestic Spying, Inc.)

Other key executives who came to Booz Allen from the spy agencies include R. James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA, who was hired in 2003 to run Booz Allen’s “global resilience” division, which advises corporations on security issues, and Joan A. Dempsey, a career U.S. intelligence official and a former top aide to former CIA Director George Tenet, who was hired in 2005 as a Booz Allen vice president with responsibility to advise the DNI and other key intelligence agencies. (See box for list of other key corporate figures that previously worked in government intelligence agencies.)

It is these senior managers who would most likely benefit from a sale to Carlyle.

Unlike many of its competitors in the intelligence industry, Booz Allen is a privately held company whose shares are owned by its 300 vice presidents of whom “approximately 80 are in government support,” Booz Allen’s Farrar told CorpWatch. For these vice presidents, Carlyle’s infusion of capital, and its $2 billion buyout of their shares, will make them very rich men and women indeed. After all, $2 billion divided by 80 is $25 million; even if Booz Allen’s shares were divided equally, which is unlikely, that’s an astounding windfall for any executive.

Booz Allen CEO Ralph Shrader

The man most responsible for Booz Allen’s growth as an intelligence contractor is Ralph Shrader, who has been running the company as chairman and CEO since 1998. Shrader, an electrical engineer by training, came to Booz Allen in 1974 after serving at senior management levels of two prominent telecommunications companies – Western Union, where he was national director of advanced systems planning, and RCA, where he served in the company’s government communications system division. These positions prepared him well for his later work at Booz Allen as a consultant to the telecommunications industry. According to his official biography, he “led major assignments” for the industry as a Booz Allen consultant and was deeply involved in the company’s “landmark work for AT&T” when that company was broken up by the government.

In those assignments, Shrader may have been exposed to the telecommunications industry’s close ties to U.S. intelligence. During the years he worked for Western Union and RCA, those companies, along with ITT World Communications, were part of a secret surveillance program known as Minaret in which telecommunication companies, with the concurrence of a handful of high-ranking executives, handed over to the NSA information on all incoming and outgoing U.S. telephone calls and telegrams – an early version of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program launched by the Bush administration after the September 11th attacks. Minaret, and the involvement of the private companies in NSA spying, was exposed by the congressional committees investigating intelligence abuse in the mid-1970s, and was the inspiration behind the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which set the rules – including the important requirement for warrants – for domestic surveillance of telephone traffic.

None of this is alluded to in Booz Allen’s official literature, of course; but Shrader, upon his appointment as CEO in 1998, mentioned in a rare press interview (with the Financial Times) that the most relevant background for his new position of chief executive was his experience working for telecommunications clients and doing classified military work for the U.S. government – “something of a Booz specialty,” the FT pointed out.

Booz Allen adds on its website that Shrader, as CEO, has also “led important programs for the U.S. National Communications System and the Defense Information Systems Agency,” two of the most important classified intelligence networks in use by the federal government. Under Shrader, Booz Allen also became the NSA’s most important outside consultant, culminating in its advisory role in Project Groundbreaker. That project, which awarded its first contracts in the summer of 2001, put Booz Allen in a prime position to capture NSA and other intelligence work in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, when intelligence budgets, and NSA surveillance, increased substantially.

“War on Terror” Contracts

After September 11th, 2001, by Booz Allen’s own account, the firm helped the government reshape its spying capabilities to match the new era of counterinsurgencies and terrorist threats. “The nature of intelligence changed dramatically in the wake of 9/11,” Christopher Ling, a Booz Allen vice president, explains in the company’s most recent annual report. “An entire analytic production system geared to detect large-scale cold war adversarial capabilities was suddenly required to transform.” At Booz Allen, he added, “We are finding innovative ways to integrate intelligence and operations, enabled by advanced visualization and data management capabilities, which has allowed us to pioneer tactics, techniques, and procedures.”

In addition to serving as a prime contractor on Admiral John Poindexter’s controversial Total Information Awareness project (see box), Booz Allen was active on both the military and economic fronts on the “war on terror.” For the Pentagon, it helped develop the “blue force” tracking system that allows soldiers and commanders in Iraq and other battlegrounds the ability to electronically identify friendly troops. And in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Booz Allen sponsored and organized several conferences aimed at helping U.S. corporations secure contracts in occupied Baghdad, with former CIA director Woolsey, one of the most ardent backers of the war, as a keynote speaker.

Under Shrader’s leadership, Booz Allen played an instrumental role after September 11th in proselytizing for a greater corporate role in national and homeland security. This was important, the Booz Allen CEO said at a CEO summit he organized in 2002, because “business leaders cannot opt out of geopolitics and leave the job of security solely to government and the military.”

Deepening the corporate alliance with the Bush administration and its war on terror also had significant advantages for Booz Allen and its fellow corporations: on one hand, it drastically increased their contracts with military and intelligence agencies; and on the other, homeland security provided a convenient excuse for reducing government oversight and regulation. These dual interests were spelled out in unusual detail in 2004 by Richard Wilhelm, a former CIA and NSA officer who once served as national security adviser to former Vice President Al Gore and now leads Booz Allen’s business with the CIA and the Office of the DNI.

Speaking to a conference on information-sharing and counterterrorism, Wilhelm explained that the “right mix of policies” for business should include a wide range of “incentives” and “cooperative arrangements,” including “appropriate protections from Freedom of Information Act requirements and other unintended consequences of more open information sharing.” Government, he argued, should “help make the business case, and then sweeten it – because industry will share information when there is a business case to do so.” In other words, corporations were happy to participate in the exchange of information about terrorism and other security threats, but only if there were enough rewards. And for Booz Allen, those rewards have been sweet indeed, as a short list of their recent unclassified contracts attests. They include:

•    A $6.3 million contract to provide research on 3-D facial recognition biometric software for the Information Assurance Technical Analysis Center at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska, awarded in 2008.
•    A $48 million contract with the U.S. Air Force to conduct research on “survivability and lethality implications” of an Air Force vehicle program, awarded in 2008.
•    In a partnership with CACI International, EDS, Lockheed Martin, SAIC and SRA, the right to bid on $12.2 billion worth of contracts for telecom and IT services for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), awarded in 2007.
•    Participation in a consortium of seven companies that will bid on up to $20 billion worth of work in Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance – a mouthful of a term usually referred to as C4ISR – for the Army’s Communications Electronics Command, which is based in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, awarded in 2006.
•    A five-year, $25o million contract to provide “systems engineering technical assistance” to the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, signed in 2005.

Little Congressional Scrutiny?

In spite of its tremendous power as a contractor, Booz Allen has received very little criticism or even scrutiny from the U.S. Congress. In January 2007, the Senate had a rare opportunity to inquire about the company when it held hearings on Michael McConnell’s nomination as Director of National Intelligence (see box). Prior to the hearing, several senators said they would question McConnell about Booz Allen’s role as a contractor; but the hearing was a desultory affair, and few questions were asked of the new DNI about the high level of contracting among the spy agencies or the specific role of Booz Allen.

A month later, a Booz Allen contract with the Department of Homeland Security came under close scrutiny in the House. In February 2007, Henry Waxman, a Democratic Congressman from California, the chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, charged that Booz Allen had a significant conflict of interest over its contract to oversee an $8 billion contract with the DHS Secure Border Initiative known as SBI-Net. Under the contract, Boeing and other companies will build a “virtual fence” of cameras, radar and sensors that will transmit imagery and data to border patrol agents working along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. (See CorpWatch's “Fencing the Border".)

The conflict arose, said Waxman, because Booz Allen had long-standing business partnerships with Boeing, the prime contractor for SBI-Net, and could therefore not provide objective oversight of the program. At the hearing, Waxman pointed out to DHS officials that they had hired 98 people to oversee the SBI-Net contract. “But the problem is that 65 of these people don’t work for the government. They work for the contractor,” he said. “You’re relying on them to do the function that a government ordinarily would do.” DHS officials responded that Booz Allen had been hired for advice, not for oversight.

Waxman’s criticism could be made of a myriad of contracts Booz Allen holds with intelligence agencies. At the NSA, for example, it has advised the agency about several contracts that involve companies that Booz Allen has close business ties with. That is also true at the NRO, the NGA and the CIA. So far, however, no reports of conflicts of interest have emerged from Congress, which in any case exercises little oversight over intelligence contracts.

In another damaging report issued in 2007, the General Accounting Office, the audit arm of the U.S. Congress, found that the Department of Homeland Security was spending nearly $16 billion a year on goods and services from the private sector, making it the third-largest employer of contractors in the federal government. Among the beneficiaries of DHS’ spending was Booz Allen Hamilton, which in 2006 was awarded a $43 million no-bid contract to provide services to the DHS intelligence unit. Upon reading the $16 billion DHS figures in the GAO report, Joseph Lieberman, an independent U.S. senator from Connecticut, angrily commented: “plainly put, we need to know who is in charge at DHS – its managers and workers, or the contractors.”

The Washington Post later found that Booz Allen’s no-bid intelligence contract with DHS had ballooned in value from $2 million in 2003 to over $30 million in 2006 – 15 times its original value. When DHS lawyers first examined the Booz Allen deal, the Post said, they found it was “grossly beyond the scope” of the original contract and had violated government procurement rules. An open competition was ordered by DHS lawyers, but delayed for a year. During that time, the Post said, “the payments to Booz Allen more than doubled again under a second no-bid arrangement, to $73 million.”

Union Protests

So far, the only public criticism of the potential Carlyle-Booz Allen deal has come from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the country’s largest labor unions. Last year, the union launched a blistering attack on Carlyle and the private equity industry in a widely distributed report called “Behind the Buyouts: Inside the World of Private Equity.” The gist of the report was that Carlyle, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts (KKR) and other large private equity funds were undermining the U.S. economy by avoiding taxes and creating “harsh consequences,” such as layoffs, for workers and communities. In late 2007, when Carlyle acquired the assets of Manor Care, a chain of nursing homes where the SEIU is trying to organize workers, the union stepped up its campaign.

In January 2008, after rumors of a Carlyle takeover of Booz Allen surfaced in the press, SEIU issued a blistering press release denouncing the potential deal. The union’s criticism of the proposed acquisition didn’t focus on Booz Allen’s role in intelligence outsourcing but on Carlyle’s ties with the Mubadala Development fund of the Government of Abu Dhabi. In 2007, that fund paid $1.35 billion to buy a 7.5 percent ownership stake in Carlyle’s general partnership.

As a result of that investment, the SEIU charged, Carlyle was risking national security. “The potential for a Carlyle Group-Booz Allen buyout demands urgency on the part of lawmakers and regulators to examine the risks faced by the U.S. when foreign governments potentially have access to classified and other sensitive national security information through their stake in U.S. companies,” the union declared in a press release. In an interview with CorpWatch, Stephen Lerner, the director of SEIU’s Private Equity Project, said the union launched this nationalist campaign out of concern that classified information from Booz Allen could leak into the hands of the Abu Dhabi fund, thus compromising U.S. security interests.

“When you combine buyout firms, which have much less reporting requirements because they are private, with opaque sovereign wealth funds, you get a toxic stew of secrecy,” he said. Asked how or why Booz Allen executives might leak classified information to a foreign government, he replied: “The point is, you have no way of knowing if they would or wouldn’t.” He added that, while the SEIU has not taken a position on Booz Allen’s extensive role in intelligence outsourcing, the issue of “government jobs being done by private contractors” might emerge in the future for the union.

(The SEIU does not mention in its material that the California Public Employees Retirement System, the pension fund for California state retirees where the SEIU has significant influence, owns five percent of the Carlyle Group – see box.)

Carlyle’s Ullman, who recently discussed the union campaign with SEIU president Andrew Stern during a conference on private equity, rejected the SEIU’s claims. The charges that the Abu Dhabi investment could jeopardize national security “is really an obscene allegation,” he said. Ullman added that the Abu Dhabi fund was a “passive investor” in Carlyle and would have no role in the management of Carlyle companies. “Carlyle’s portfolio companies have a pristine track record in handling sensitive government data,” he said. “Giving top secret and classified data to foreign governments is known as treason, and is punishable by jail and worse. That would be a fairly strong impediment” to leaks.

In any case, there is virtually no evidence to suggest that any US intelligence contractor has leaked classified information, and it’s unlikely the union’s allegations will be a factor if the Carlyle Group does decide to acquire Booz Allen Hamilton.

Shadow Intelligence Agency

Booz Allen prides itself on the long-term personal relationships it has forged between its personnel and their government clients. “We stay for a lifetime,” Mark J. Gerencser, the senior vice president in charge of Booz Allen’s government contracting division, remarked in 2006. A quick study of their biographies posted on Booz Allen’s Website suggests that this is indeed true – the senior management have shuttled back and forth between the company and the government for their entire lives.

As the director of Booz Allen’s U.S. government business, for example, Gerencser serves in “several broad-based roles,” including “representing industry” to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which manage the Pentagon’s vast intelligence operations. He is also a member of Booz Allen’s leadership team that sets the strategic direction of the company, and has run many of the war games staged by Booz Allen for its government clients.

Just below him in the company’s intelligence hierarchy is Ken Wiegand, another senior vice president. Weigand came to Booz Allen in 1983 after working for a decade in Air Force intelligence, and now leads the firm’s work for national intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the Department of Homeland Security. His specialty, the Website says, includes imagery intelligence operations, which are managed by the NGA, one of Booz Allen’s most important clients.

Senior vice president Joseph W. Mahaffee, a veteran of naval intelligence, is the leader of Booz Allen’s Maryland procurement office business, which puts him in charge of the company’s contracts with the NSA in Fort Meade. He focuses on “meeting the Information Assurance mission objectives” of the NSA with various technology services, including systems engineering, software development and “advanced telecommunications analysis.”

Another key Booz Allen figure at the NSA is Marty Hill, who came to the company after a 35-year career in signals intelligence and electronic warfare and previously served as an expert on “information operations capabilities and policy” for Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. He leads of team of 1,200 professionals engaged in all aspects of “signals intelligence” including technical analysis, systems development and operations.

Vice President Pamela Lentz is a former cryptology officer with the Navy and once worked as a program manager for TRW, one of the nation’s oldest intelligence contractors (it is now owned by Northrop Grumman). She is Booz Allen’s “client service officer” for the DIA and other military intelligence markets, which includes intelligence units within the Navy, Air Force, Army, the unified combatant commands and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Among other tasks, Lentz manages a 120-person Booz Allen team that supports the NRO, the Pentagon agency that manages the nation’s military spy satellites. She also runs a task force that supports human intelligence collection efforts at the DIA.

Vice President Laurene Gallo, a former intelligence analyst at the NSA, leads a Booz Allen “intelligence research and analysis” team that support several agencies, including the CIA, the DNI and the National Counterterrrorism Center. Vice President Richard Wilhelm, whose job at Booz Allen is to work with the CIA and the ODNI, came to the company after a long career in U.S. intelligence that included stints directing the Joint Intelligence Center for Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and the NSA’s first director of information warfare.

Vice President William Wansley, a former Army intelligence officer, leads a team of experts in “strategic and business planning” who support the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, the part of the CIA that conducts covert operations and recruits foreign spies, as well as the DNI. Another vice president Robert W. Noonan, a retired Army lieutenant general who once served as the Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence and the commanding general of the U.S. Army’s Intelligence and Security Command, is in charge of expanding Booz Allen’s military intelligence business within all the armed services, the combatant commands, the DIA and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

It is each of these vice presidents who are poised to personally profit from a corporate takeover by the Carlyle Group.

Who is the Carlyle Group?

The Carlyle Group is a private equity fund – a group of financial advisers that invests large sums of money from pension funds, large corporations, wealthy individuals and foreign banks into privately held companies in many different industries, and then run those companies until the market is right to sell them at a substantial profit. During the early years of the George W. Bush administration, it gained attention – and some notoriety – because of the large number of former high-ranking political figures it had attracted as advisers and managers. They included former President George H.W. Bush, former Secretary of State James Baker and former British Prime Minister John Major.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, Carlyle was in the news again when newspapers revealed that Osama Bin Laden’s family in Saudi Arabia – which owns one of the world’s largest construction companies – held a stake in the fund. The stake was quickly liquidated after the news broke.

Until the recent slowdown in the financial markets, the private equity industry, with over $160 billion under its control, was widely seen as one of the most important drivers of the global economy, pumping venture capital into high-tech startups and buy-out capital into corporate reorganizations worldwide. They are extremely active in Britain, where more than 20 percent of the private sector workforce is employed by companies that are, or have been, the targets of private equity investments. Business magazines credit them with breaking up some of America’s worst-run conglomerates and bringing competition to Japan’s highly regulated and incestuous banking industry.

“Private equity funds now wield much of the transformational power at the heart of the capitalist system,” The Economist magazine recently observed. In addition to Carlyle, which has more than $75 billion under management, industry leaders include the Blackstone Group ($30 billion), Bain Capital ($27 billion), Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. ($26 billion) and Texas Pacific Group ($20 billion).

Carlyle, the largest of the funds, is best-known for owning large military contractors and aerospace contractors, such as United Defense Industries, the maker of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and other weapons systems, which it sold to BAE Systems in 2004, and Vought Aircraft Industries, a major producer of structural assemblies for commercial, military and business aircraft, which it still holds. Other military contractors that have gone through Carlyle’s hands include EG&G, LTV Aerospace and Magnavox Electronic Systems.

During the 1990s, when it made most of these acquisitions, the fund was led by former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, who served during the Carter administration as deputy director of the CIA. During his tenure, Carlyle bought and sold nearly a dozen companies active in the intelligence industry. They include BDM International, an influential company that, during the 1990s, provided some of the U.S. Army’s first contract interpreters and, through a subsidiary known as Vinnell Corporation, once trained the Saudi National Guard. It was eventually sold to Northrop Grumman and is now part of that company’s huge intelligence division.

U.S. Investigative Service, which Carlyle bought in 1996 and sold in 2007, is the largest provider of security investigations for employees and contractors hired by the Pentagon, the National Security Agency and other agencies, and in recent months has been training Iraqi police commandoes under contract to the Pentagon. (See CorpWatch coverage of USIS.)

Another spectacular acquisition was QinetiQ, the privatized arm of Britain’s military research corporation. It was acquired by Carlyle in 2003, sold in 2007, and recently emerged as one of the premiere U.S. intelligence contractors – after netting a $470 million profit for Carlyle. (See our article “QinetiQ goes Kinetic”.)

Carlyle, however, has divested itself of most of its military holdings. “In our current U.S. portfolio, there’s none,” Carlyle’s Ullman told CorpWatch. Today, most of its investments are concentrated in commercial industries, such as real estate and banking. During a few months’ span in 2006, for instance, Carlyle did a “manufacturing deal, an education deal, a consumer products deal, and buildings deal, and a financial services deal,” according to an account in the Washingtonian magazine. Its holdings are extensive and pervasive: every time you rent a car from Hertz, catch a quick breakfast at Dunkin’ Donuts or get ice-cream at Baskin-Robbins, you’re sending money to Carlyle.

A $2 billion acquisition of Booz Allen’s contracting business would therefore put Carlyle back in the big leagues of military contractors.

Michael McConnell

Booz Allen Hamilton’s most illustrious alumnus is Michael McConnell, the current Director of National Intelligence, the top spy job in the country, who epitomizes the term revolving door, spinning from government job to industry and back again.

McConnell was a senior Pentagon official during George Bush Senior’s administration and the first Gulf War, where he worked for Dick Cheney, then the Secretary of Defense, as the chief intelligence adviser to General Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cheney was so impressed with McConnell’s work during the war that he appointed him to head the NSA in 1993 (he later intervened personally to convince McConnell to take the DNI job in 2007).

McConnell subsequently spent more than 10 years as a Booz Allen senior vice president in charge of the company’s extensive contracts in military intelligence and information operations for the Pentagon. In that job, his official biography states, McConnell provided intelligence support to "the U.S. Unified Combatant Commanders, the Director of National Intelligence Agencies, and the Military Service Intelligence Directors." That made him a close colleague of not only Donald Rumsfeld, who ran the Pentagon from 2001 to 2007, but of Vice President Cheney, who has served President Bush as a kind of intelligence godfather since the earliest days of the administration.

As Booz Allen’s chief intelligence liaison to the Pentagon, McConnell was at the center of action, both before and after the September 11 attacks. During the first six years of the Bush administration, Booz Allen’s contracts with the U.S. government rose dramatically, from $626,000 in 2000 to $1.6 billion in 2006. McConnell and his staff at Booz Allen were deeply involved in some of the Bush administration’s most controversial counterterrorism programs. They included the Pentagon’s infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme run by former Navy Admiral John Poindexter, which was an attempt to collect information on potential terrorists in America from phone records, credit card receipts and other databases. (Congress cancelled the program over civil liberties concerns, but much of the work was transferred to the NSA, where Booz Allen continued to receive the contracts.)

In 2002, when the CIA launched a financial intelligence project to track terrorist financing with the secret cooperation of SWIFT, the Brussels-based international banking consortium, Booz Allen won a contract to serve as an “outside” auditor of the project.

In January 2007, McConnell resigned from Booz Allen after he was appointed by President George W. Bush to his current job. He now oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, and thus much of Booz Allen’s government business. (See this reporter's 2007 Salon article.)

Of Unions, Pension Funds and the Carlyle Group

The SEIU’s campaign material on the Carlyle Group, including a 40-page white paper on private equity issued last year, fails to mention a salient fact: that many SEIU members are affiliated with a pension fund that holds a significant stake in the Carlyle Group.

That fund is the California Public Employees Retirement System, the world’s largest public pension fund, often known as CalPERS. It has held a five percent stake in Carlyle’s core management group since 2000, and therefore profits every time Carlyle makes money from one of its investments. Many of the California state officials who sit on CalPERS boards are also members of the SEIU, although they officially only represent their employer, not the union.

In 2001, this reporter attended a meeting of the CalPERS investment board where Carlyle’s three founding managers appeared as witnesses. The public meeting took place at a time when Carlyle was a hot media topic because of its close ties to the Bush administration and its prominence as the nation’s 11th largest military contractor. Several SEIU officials attended the meeting, and the questioning of Carlyle was led by a CalPERS official who belonged to the SEIU. However, the investment board didn’t ask about Carlyle’s military industry investments, and instead posed a single, softball question about Carlyle’s views on the U.S. investment climate.

Asked why the SEIU hasn’t mentioned CalPERS’ stake in Carlyle in any of its literature, Stephen Lerner, the director of SEIU’s Private Equity Project, replied that the union didn’t start investigating the pension fund’s role in Carlyle until 2007.

Until then, “we never really thought about CalPERS’ investment in Carlyle,” he said. “Now that we’re digging in deeper, we’re raising lots of questions.” Under SEIU’s initiative, a California lawmaker has introduced legislation that would prohibit CalPERS from investing in private equity funds owned in part by overseas funds from countries that don’t “generally respect human rights.” According to an SEIU handout, the legislation “is only applicable to private equity firms in which sovereign wealth funds have an ownership stake,” such as Carlyle.

Carlyle’s Ullman responded that the legislation could hurt the people it is supposed to protect. California lawmakers “should consider the detrimental impact on California pensioners who have benefited greatly from CalPERS’ investment in, and ownership of, the Carlyle Group,” he told CorpWatch.

Tim Shorrock’s book on the outsourcing of U.S. intelligence, Spies for Hire, will be published in May by Simon & Schuster.

[Anti_Illuminati]

Source See original site for embedded, and additional links.

9/11: A Revolution in Military Affairs

You have been lied to by people that are experts at lying, some of them decorated 9/11 researchers. NO ONE is immune to manipulation. I merely was in a good position at the time of the attacks to notice a few things that others weren't. I hope you will consider my research. I am willing to answer any questions you might have.

The National Reconnaissance Office, Mitre Corporation, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and Booz, Allen, & Hamilton

August 8, 2001: Booz, Allen, & Hamilton employee named head of NIMA (National Imagery and Mapping Agency - now the National Geophysical Intelligence Agency)

From Biographies: Federal Government: Civilian and Military (link no longer works)

James R. Clapper named Director of National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet jointly announced the appointment of James R. Clapper Jr. as the new director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) on August 8, 2001. Clapper, who will become the first civilian head of the agency, succeeds Army Lt. Gen. James C. King who has headed NIMA since March 1998 and will be retiring from the Army later this year. Clapper was chosen for the position owing to his grasp of intelligence matters and his knowledge of the needs of NIMA's principal users, the combat commanders.

The director has more than 37 years experience in intelligence, working at all levels and phases of the field. He retired from the Air Force in September 1995 as a lieutenant general after a four-year tour as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Since his retirement, he has served success ively as executive vice president of Vredenburg, a systems acquisition services company headquartered in Reston, Va.; executive director, military intelligence for Booz, Allen & Hamilton, McLean, Va.; and recently as vice president, director of intelligence programs for SRA, International, Fairfax, Va.

He was a senior member of the Downing Assessment Task Force, which investigated the terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in June 1996. NIMA, established in October 1996, is responsible for the collection of imagery through the use of both national and commercial assets. It advises others responsible for collecting imagery using theater and tactical reconnaissance assets. NIMA produces timely imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information in support of the nation's military forces, policymakers, and civil customers.

From 911 Review:

On September 19th, 2000, Govexec.com describes a "never before seen" level of cooperation between the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon, that is expected to be involved in "Project Trailblazer"," an initiative to develop a 21st-century "signals intelligence" system that can crack new encryption software, hard-to-tap fiber-optic cables, and cellular phone transmissions" and able "to fight terrorism", referring already to Bin Laden and his"millennium plot" ("Y2K terrorist operation").



In 2001, the Trailblazer program was developed under the order of the NRO, with sub contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and took partly place in the wing of the Pentagon, which was later officially hit by "Flight77".

Booz is a high rank "member" of military and intelligence. They're also Corporate Member of the National Military Intelligence Association.

On August 8, 2001, two days after Bush received a new PDB with a clear warning on Bin Laden; Booz, Allen, & Hamilton employee named James R. Clapper as head of NIMA (the National Imagery and Mapping Agency - the 'eyes of America').

Clapper, leads this project for the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), which at the same time not only develops new satellite capabilities (A NRO payload launched into space on September 8, 2001), but also worked on a terror drill for Sep11th (9 AM), crashing planes into the headquarters, as later confirmed by NRO Officer John Fulton.

When BoozAllen started to work for the NRO, it was well known, that they also had been a client of Blessed Relief, the charity said to be a front for Osama Bin Laden. However, this seemed to be not a problem for the NRO.

On September 11th, BoozAllen Hamilton lost 3 employees in the Pentagon : Gerald Fisher, Terence Lynch, and Ernest Willcher. They apparently worked for the government on Trailblazer 1 (which included also another sub cover project, called "Soldier Benefits Tool").

In the same building, Scott Powell and Edmond Young, working for BTG Inc, died on the same day. In April 2001 BTG aquired RPI, which was working on exercises to respond to possible chemical or biological terrorist attacks.

Only 9 days after Sep11th, it was reason enough that BTG announced to be acquired by Titan Corporation.



It was also Titan, who provided their disinfection systems to Post Offices in October 2001, after anthrax was discovered in mailings to members of Congress and journalists.

But the Titan Connection with the department of the Pentagon, which was working on Trailblazer was older than September 2001.

Another "original NSA-plan" for "Trailblazer" was from 2 April 2001, then described as a "program to develop analytic capabilities to meet the challenge of rapidly evolving, modern telecommunications", prime contracts were awarded to Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. , Lockheed Martin Corporation and TRW.

Trailblazer was much more than just an advanced "spy and satellite program". Already in September 2000, SpaceNewsFeed revealed, that Trailblazer is part of the "Trans Orbital Lunar GPS Experiment".



TransOrbital's private, robotic 2001 TrailBlazer's prime mission is to return HDTV video from lunar orbit for use as commercial products. The privately held company is conducting the 2001 TrailBlazer Project as a for-profit Space Venture and will produce various video and other products.

As announced, the "2001 TrailBlazer spacecraft will not rely upon GPS data for its navigation at the moon, but instead will use established means of navigation".

It is not clear, how long before Sep 2001, Titan Corporation was connected with Trailblazer, but one public document mentioned them in March 2001. Probably Titan was back and forth involved with many other sub contractors they used, to keep in strong touch with the program.

On June 14th, 2001, Logicon TASC, a Northrop Grumman company, has won a $75 million contract with the Pentagon.

But already two months earlier, in March 2001, Logicon TASC announced it had won another "five-year, $57 million contract" (possibly the same) "with a U.S. intelligence agency to provide systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support for Trailblazer".

The Logicon TASC team included a long list of sub contractors, among them Veridian, e-voting specialist Electronic Data Systems Corp, SRS Technologies and Titan Systems Corp.

By now, it appears odd, that this high tech spy team around Booz, the NRO and the Pentagon, was not able to protect themselves on Sep11th. Neither an early evacuation was arranged or the "observation" of the "hijacked planes" had been recognised in time.



One of another Trailblazer partner, TRW and their subsidiary, Peter Peterson's Blackstone Group, had similar "problems". In October 2000, they obtained the mortgage of WTC 7, a building which then turned into a military complex, with offices on the 23rd floor by the CIA and DoD.

However, the CIA wasn't able to protect the building on Sep11th. More odd, the complete building collapsed at 5:25 PM on that day under yet unexplained reasons. NIST, asked by INN World Report in February 2004 in New York, answered, they would look into these circumstances.



The NSA originally selected one of the Pentagon's top Private Military Contractrors, SAIC-led Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) Enterprise team that includes Northrop Grumman Corporation, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., The Boeing Company , Computer Sciences Corporation (later owner of DynCorp) and SAIC wholly-owned subsidiary Telcordia Technologies to contribute to the modernization of the NSA's signals intelligence capabilities.

In October 2002, SAIC officially announced the contract award from the National Security Agency (NSA) to be the provider of the technology demonstration platform (TDP) phase of the TRAILBLAZER program. At that time, it wasn't well known for the public, that the Program was already developed since 2 years.

The myth, the Pentagon was victim of incompetence and negligence on Sep11th, does still circulate around.



Since Mid 2002, Booz Allen Hamilton (also another specialist of anti-terror drills) has ex-CIA and PNAC member James Woolsey as one of their directors, the other is Dale Watson (ex-FBIHQ), who was recently accused by many different people as part of the 9/11 Cover-up: ex-FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds or Richard Clarke but also, less implicating ex-FBI Thomas Pickard.

Titan profits enormously from their NSA connection. In November 2002, the NSA selected Titan as prime contractor "for the Enterprise Architecture and Decision Support (EADS) program having a potential value of $533 million over a 24-month base period and five options."



Meanwhile, the Trailblazer program developed into another experimental and mysterious level. In May 2004, The MITRE Corporation, working together with the DMSO (Defense Modeling and Simulation Office), describes it now as "simulations to support a specific example experiment. The example experiment was modeled on a J-6-sponsored LIVEX that was planned and conducted in parallel, and largely independently of the "Trailblazer" effort."

What follow are snips from previous research of mine:

[...]

Carl Hammond, 37, was a passenger on board the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He also was a physicist for Mitre Corporation, a company that peddles Global Hawk (remote piloting) technology. The strongest case has been made that Global Hawk was employed in electronically hijacking the planes in question regarding September 11. Warren Buffet heads Mitre Corp. as well as Berkshire-Hathaway and NetJets, not to mention BizJets.

[...]

The NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) demonstrated its new satellite capabilities (NRO payload launched into space on September 8, 2001) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA - "the eyes of America") gained a new director one month prior to that fateful day. Considering all of this, one gets a pretty clear picture of where all those 'Star Wars' dollars went. James R. Clapper is the man named to head NIMA and he comes from Booz, Allen, & Hamilton which is a client for Blessed Relief, the charity said to be a front for Osama Bin Laden.

[...]

Someone wrote me: "I noticed some times ago that the company Booz had lost 3 employees in the Pentagon : Gerald Fisher, Terence Lynch, and Ernest Willcher. They had apparently to work for the government on Trailblazer 1, a system required to spy communications..

"Scott Powell and Edmond Young, members of BTG Inc, died in Pentagon too. RPI, acquired by BTG Inc in April 2001, awarded $11.2 Million Contract by Department of Justice : under the contract, RPI will support exercises to help prepare state and lo cal officials to respond to possible chemical or biological terrorist attacks... They did the job so good that BTG Inc was acquired by Titan Corp on September 20, 2001, a probable coincidence.."

The following snip was taken from a Google search a few years ago (Mitre has since removed it from their website and when they did, so called 9/11 researchers began to demand proof that Buffet had evern been associated with Mitre - can you say damage control?):

MITRE Globetrotter in Omaha, Nebraska... United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM for short) Headquarters on Offutt Air Force Base ... Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the country (next to Bill ... www.mitre.org/news/gt/omaha/omahaltr.shtml - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

The following is snipped from Xymphora:

A number (it hasn't been reported exactly how many but it was called 'a small group of business leaders') of CEO's from New York, including at least one from the WTC, were attending a breakfast meeting at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska on the morning of September 11, guests of Warren Buffett (isn't he the same guy who has guaranteed that the United States will suffer a nuclear attack by terrorists?). Offutt Air Force Base is the base that Bush flew to on September 11, supposedly because it is the headquarters of the E-4B, the aircraft which is the "command, control and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities".

He wanted to be on the scene in person, particularly as there was fear that the terrorists were in possession of the secret codes by which they could electronically impersonate Bush in giving military commands (interesting how we have heard nothing more of that story). So how much of a coincidence is it that this meeting with Warren Buffett was at the same air force base that Bush flew to (apparently Bush intended to fly directly to Offutt, but had to stop for refueling in Louisiana)? Is it possible that Buffett's invitation to a bunch of 'important' New York City executives for a breakfast meeting at an air force base in Nebraska (just think about how weird that is!) was an attempt to save the lives of the invitees?

The following is snipped from http://www.mitre.org/ (it may no longer be there plus - one warning: Mitre helped to develop the internet and makes software for the IRS so visit their site at your own risk):

MITRE is a not-for-profit national resource that provides systems engineering, research and development, and information technology support to the government. It operates federally funded research and development centers for the DOD, the FAA, and the IRS, with principal locations in Bedford, Massachusetts, and Northern Virginia.

[...]

MITRE is supporting DARPA and the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate (program agent) on the Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement (AMSTE). The AMSTE program is developing technologies to affordably engage moving surface targets such as tanks, tactical ballistic missile transporters, and small boats from long ranges and in all weather conditions.

[...]

MITRE is experimenting with the integration of advanced Internet technologies into the ISR sensor ground station. The ISR Information Service (ISRIS) Mission Oriented Investigation and Experimentation (MOIE) will develop a prototype information portal that provides ISR sensor data and ground station service accessibility to the Battlespace Internets: the Intelinks, the Air Force Joint Battlespace Infosphere (JBI), the Navy Network Centric Warfare, and the Army First Digital Division. In FY01, the project will demonstrate the ISRIS concept using the Global Hawk UAV platform. Global Hawk is an excellent platform for this pathfinding research since it has no established TPED support systems today, and it's multiple sensor data types Electro-Optic (EO), Infra-Red (IR), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) make it an especially rich information source.

Pathfinding research they say? Sounds oddly like traiblazing (i.e. Trailblazer).

The following is snipped from Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle Technology:

After September eleventh, UCAV technology took a big step. Although not confirmed by the Pentagon, it is reported that an RQ-1 Predator spy plane equipped with hellfire missiles flew over Afghanistan and conducted the first successful remote-controlled bombing raids in history (Bowmaster). The operators remained safely on the ground out of harms way.

[...]

Boeing, with backing from DARPA, is on the cutting edge with the development of the X-45, which is scheduled for flight test in early 2002. With an estimated range of 500 to 1,000 miles and a payload of 1,000 to 3,000 pounds, Boeing intends to increase effectiveness and survivability of manned combat aircraft by sending their UCAV in first to clear out radar, antiaircraft sights, and surface to air missile (SAM) sights. With two prototypes already complete, they are moving forward with their vision of air combat tomorrow.

Realize of course, that to leak anything but where we were at ten or more years ago with these technologies would be a violation of national security and probably prosecutable.

A snip from a site that no longer exists:

Houston Associates, Inc., located in most large Federal government engineering centers, is a leading edge engineering technologies company, that has been involved with a wide variety of DoD Information Technologies requirements for more than 15 years. HAI has provided outstanding engineering capabilities and transitional development services to a wide range of clients.

Among our Federal client base are DARPA, DISA, DIA, DSWA, USAF, US Army, several CINCs, and Federal Agencies. Each is supported with engineering capabilities from Network (MAN&WAN), ATM requirements (Red and Black systems), Mission Control Support Element Engineering Services employing leading edge Information Technologies for the UAV-Predator, UAV-Global Hawk, and other relate systems. HAI supports and is under contract to provide engineering services to the NASA Manned Space Flight Program at Marshall and Johnson Space Flight Centers. HAI is also doing network site work at Birk Test Center, Edward AFB, California. Our commercial client base included Raytheon, Sprint, Lockheed Space, an Lockheed SkunkWorks, to name a few.

The following is snipped from 2600, a hacking publication:

"Despite the U.S. spending millions to defend satellites from its own high-powered laser weapons, many of these computers in orbit still obey commands without authenticating their source."

Remember, US space stations experienced disruption of their satellite communications on that day. SOMEONE had access to highly sensitive frequencies of transmission.

"The devastating terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, New York and the Pentagon have shocked and horrified us all. The attacks also caused disruption for satellite and space companies across the USA." [SOURCE]
_____________________________________________________________
Source See original site for embedded, and additional links.

The 9/11 Information Mike Ruppert Doesn't Want You to Hear

So you think you've heard it all on 9/11, eh? I sincerely doubt it unless you are familiar with the research of a handful of people whose discoveries were so unnerving to the establishment that it sicked some of its biggest 9/11 gatekeepers on them, gatekeepers that are, themselves, erroneously thought of as being legitimate journalists and by that I mean thought of as legitimate by the resistance. Hey, we can all be fooled.

Here is a piece I wrote last year (more on Ruppert's role in all of this at the bottom of this post) in which I erroneously claim that Memes.org is defunct. As we can all see, she is alive and kicking! Here you go:

9/11: It's Time for America to Pick Up the Baton

Two years ago, several years of independent 9/11 investigation, research independent of any online umbrella group and independent of a Bush adminstration provided lead (that nineteen Arabs pulled off the events of September 11, 2001), was destroyed (since, I have resurrected much of it at this blog). It was destroyed from several angles. Its author was intimidated by multiple fires starting at residences inhabited by immediate family members (two different fires in one week) and by the poisoning of two of his dogs, in separate incidents a year or so apart. This author (yours truly) had been through an awful lot already, including many thousands of electronic attacks on his websites, mailing lists, and email accounts and by the most jarring kinds of death threats.

After having my love life infiltrated by an operative, specifically by a woman that after a year and a half experienced some attack of conscience and informed me that she had been "assigned" to me, and in conjunction with what I had experienced in other aspects of my life, I decided to drop out of the online activist scene. At this time, in the fall of 2004, I had just witnessed another hijacking of the electoral process and after I saw that John Kerry was going to sit on millions of dollars of campaign money rather than spend any of it getting to the bottom of the fraud, I was at the brink of despondency.

The 9/11 research I speak of was also destroyed by having Indymedia, who at the time took an active stance against such research, delete each and every thing I had ever posted there. In a matter of a couple of days, everything ever posted there by Agent Smiley (an old online pseudonym of mine) or Eric Stewart was suddenly gone, this after one Michael C. Ruppert had specifically stated that he was going to contact Indymedia and request just such censorship. He said he'd do it and then it was all gone and still, to this day, I go through endless inane arguments that insist that I may be wrong in my conclusions.

Additionally, Memes.org, a now essentially defunct website, went under. Reportedly, everything ever archived there (three quarters, I am sure, of everything I had researched on 9/11) was now held hostage by some ISP. At this point, I can see the question mark hovering over readers' heads and I will explain that for years I conducted all of my activism on computers at public libraries and university libraries and didn't own my own, hence the fact that none of this information was backed up.

Let me be clear: although I am not the first person to draw a connection between Warren Buffet and 9/11 and although I was not the first person to draw a connection between Global Hawk (remote piloting) and that fateful day, I was the first person that drew a connection between Buffet and such technologies and more specifically, Mitre Corporation. I state this for one reason and that is that I intend, here, to illustrate the importance of this vein of research that I stumbled upon a few years ago, this for the very last time. It was far more important than I had any idea of at the time and, further, I would only later discover that it was important enough to have some element, presumably the national security state (whom I had already angered a few years before by instigating Jam Echelon Day), devote many labor hours and lots of dollars to disrupting it.

Back in 2001, I had just come out of several years of psychological operations, ops aimed at my destabilization and, essentially, at punishing me for having the gall to make sure that Echelon (an NSA system whereby emails and phone calls were eavesdropped upon, globally, for decades) made it from being just another conspiracy theory to being on the set of Sixty Minutes. In just four months, this system went from being hardly heard of to being the subject of discussion all over the web, in magazines and newspapers, and on the floor of congress.

Also, back in 2001, I was just beginning a mailing list that was designed to highlight psychological operations. I was determined to expose what had happened to me and to warn others of just how mass behavior was modified, covertly and without the knowledge of most. Yes, millions, I discovered, were being manipulated without their awareness. It can be a difficult task convincing people that their opinions are not their own but are, largely, in fact, manufactured and induced by the corporate-military media complex. This kind of claim attacks most peoples' sense of identity and sovereignty and it is a common reaction to attack the messenger and never consider the message, especially in a land where comfort is the prime directive.

On this mailing list, much transpired in the early days ensuing the events of September 11, 2001 that would give me a lens through which to view the intentions and methods of certain individuals. To be more clear, there were a few relatively famous internet personalities that, for one reason or another, were drawn to my list and whom I would get to know. Today, Dick Eastman and one Webfairy conduct an endless rabbit hole of arguments, carefully designed to feign opposition and to attempt to define the parameters of separate camps within the 9/11 movement. A short narrative is in order here.

Back in 2001, and partly into 2002, I was in search of my own answers regarding the destruction of the twin towers and I had no particular special insight. There were a handful of people that were on my list that I considered to have some keen minds but I took no particular stance, merely knowing that something was certainly fishy about that day. Between Eastman, Webfairy, and a few others, I had much to sort through and much of it was mutually contradictory. I plugged along, trying to take it all in. What I didn't know at the time was that I had already been given the magic key to 9/11 a few years earlier, by an intelligence operative. The key was Mitre.

I was researching masonic lore and conspiracy legend surrounding this nebulous group (freemasons) when I happened upon mention of the word Mitre in the context of a Babylonian god that allegedly had been assigned as being in charge of measurement, the word 'mitre' being comparable to 'meter', and hence 'measurement.' In my perusings, I came upon the existence of a non-profit defense outfit called Mitre Corporation and among the first things I discovered about them was that they were heavily into real time battle command (the real time flow of information regarding targets globally, managed by supercomputers) and remote piloting.

I also discovered something that Mitre used to brag about but that now is not mentioned in any way whatsoever at their website, that one of their prime benefactors was Warren Buffet, the world's second richest man. Since I had already heard that Buffet was at Offut Air Force Base on September 11, 2001 with a handful of CEO's from the World Trade Center and since I had just recently become familiar with the theory that remote piloting had been used to crash two jets into the twin towers, I began to further research Mitre. What I would soon find out was that by plugging Mitre into the 9/11 equation, revelations would make themselves obvious with exponential rapidity, one after another.

I knew I was onto something. After all, the best and most well known 9/11 researchers among us were coming up with new leads every few months but this stuff was releasing a Pandora's box, one that was yielding new leads DAILY. This had to be significant. I mean, when the introduction of a single element to a body of research unleashes revelations at hundreds of times the rate as any other piece of information, it just made sense that this must be an overlooked, vitally important item in discovering the perpetrators of Reichstag II.

Initially, Dick Eastman supported my research, especially went some of it implied a potential Chinese involvement. To this day, I consider that day to have been an international effort, involving the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China. However, soon after, for some reason unknown to me, Eastman dropped from my list sent me a vague nasty about my research, and began to tell others on other lists that I had no ear to that I was consciously involved in some effort at disinformation.

I felt thoroughly betrayed, a feeling I would come to know intimately in the research that ensued over the next three or so years. As well, Webfairy dropped from my list, similarly offering vague, hostile sounding reasons and telling others that I was part of a global cabal of vampires (she called me a "drac" to be specific), my family name of 'Stewart' being part of her reasoning. Internet, Masonic conspiracy lore claims the Stewarts as being part of some ancient, evil group of bloodlines. Appealing to the lowest common denominator, she would inform the David Icke crowd that I was not to be trusted.

Though all of this is, in a sense, highly laughable, I consider the attempt at affecting the least discriminating among us with deceit to be vile in that it can, unfortunately, be effective. In Webfairy's case, she would pick up my Buffet leads and forever discredit them by reaching a vast amount of people with them in accompaniment with other, ridiculous ideas such as the existence of flying saucers at the World Trade Center. Today, she helps people associate some of the most important 9/11 leads with the theory that no planes even hit the towers that day and that it was all special effects.

I took my leads to Mike Ruppert and his response was to have me booted from every forum that he and I shared. My attempts at resurecting the Ptech story (a Massachusettes software firm with Mitre connections and connections to the Carlyle Group via bin Laden and to Booz, Allen, & Hamilton) and at pointing out the flaw in trusting the very regime we accuse of being at the controls of said ops to provide us with a solid lead (it was the Bush administration that gave us the idea that nineteen Arabs had anything to do with it) drew completely fabricated accusations by Ruppert.

If you don't already feel like you have vertigo from the incessant rabbit holes of the 9/11 investigations, let me help you: Ruppert accused me of accusing him of things that I never accused him of. I asked him to reproduce such accusations, certain that he couldn't (because they never occured), and his response was to threaten me with lawsuits if I didn't stop accusing him of things. Having been falsely accused of accusing a man of things that I never did, I could immediately see that all of this would serve two purposes. He would use his reputation to convince newcomers to our debate not to trust me (after all, who that is still reading this puts the words of an unknown like Eric Stewart into a category of higher credibility than the mighty, well know Michael C. Ruppert) and he would use endless inane arguments and a wilderness of mirrors to confuse any that would actually follow our debate.

By this time, I was seeing that Ruppert employed many of the same tactics that other psyop practitioners used. These kinds of tactics are rampant in the investigations into 9/11 and their sole purpose is to make the task of sorting through all of it seem far too daunting for most, discouraging most Americans from even looking into it and convincing many that insanity is rampant among such investigators. So, finally, after denying that I had ever accused Ruppert of anything, I began to feel that some accusations might be in order.

When I began to question his integrity over this contrived bantering, he had his ammunition and taking accusations that I finally did make to Indymedia as evidence that I was a detractor of one of the most important investigators of our time (this is the stance that he would take), he had everything I had ever archived at Indymedia removed. Ironically, From the Wilderness now hosts research into Mitre Corporation and Ptech by Michael Kane, though he carefully avoids any of the Israeli connections. Nowhere in their research is there a single mention of Israel. Similarly, Christopher Bollyn has attacked the Mitre-Ptech connection, focusing rabidly on the Israeli connections while ignoring the Saudi ones, connections that are hyperfocused on by FTW.

Can you say controlled opposition? After all, one of the things that became obvious in my own research into all of this (linking to Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, a firm neither Ruppert nor Bollyn seem to dare mention) was that there was close cooperation between Saudi royalty and the Israeli Space Agency. For those of you unaware at the extent to which various space programs around the world were involved in the events of 9/11, check out the links at the bottom of this post.

If you have read this far, I thank you and you should thank yourself for doing whatever it is that you have done to ensure that your mind has remained open during these trying times, times that certainly encourage people to close their minds entirely. I would like you, the reader that has stayed with me, to know that the reason I have gone into all of this is because of recent events, wherein psyops run amuck. Recently, the controlled demolition aspect of 9/11 investigations flowered to fruition.

Various outfits produced video presentations in which we were made aware of the undeniability of this angle of the 9/11 truth movement. One eighteen second snippet of video, sampled from a BBC special that came out this last September was particularly devastating to the charade presented to the American people, as it made the sequence of charges that took down the twin towers not only particularly visible, but completely audible. Additionally, the very fact that this video was extremely short and devoid of long winded narratives made it all that much more powerful in its ability as a convincer.

I consider it no accident that in the wake of this, at roughly the same moment in time, that certain fairly well known icons in the movement suddenly jumped onto the wagon that says that a scalar beam destroyed the towers. The element of the fantastic again took the forefront and I am sure that in the process we lost many people that were on the verge of accepting the legitimacy of the 9/11 truth movement. Believe it or not, the first person I ever heard make this claim was none other than Webfairy, years ago. As well, she and other 'no-planers' have kicked into high gear in digging rabbit holes everywhere possible.

I am done with 9/11 research. In the course of years of arguments with people all over the web and on countless mailing lists, I have come to realize that if ninety-nine percent of people on such lists are going to continue to remain silent, then I will no longer be among the one percent that actually voices his mind. I have no way of knowing what the average American truly thinks about all of this because on the internet, the average American is silent.

If I am to go by the type of person that I most commonly find myself engaged with over issues such as these and if I am to consider such persons typical of the American mind, then the American mind is either deliberately closed or hopelessly stunted. Even if such people are not representative of how America thinks, then we are left with the fact that ninety-nine percent of the online public consider the internet, websites, and even so-called discussion groups to be spectator events wherein all gather around to hear a few speak. I, for one, will not contribute to the spectacle. I will not contribute to a dynamic that only serves to reinforce the spectator-performer duality. I am not special. I have no amazing gift for research; I have only the willingness to do it.

There is a whole lot more to what I had intended to go into regarding remote piloting, including the atmospheric physics that are key to understanding how over the horizon signalling is made possible and enhanced but I no longer feel that I serve the greater good by doing so. It is your turn, America. You, the reader, if you have even made it this far into this diatribe, are apparently equipped to do exactly as I have done. You need to trust yourself and that is all.

Don't be afraid of ridicule and don't be afraid of online spooks. There are too many of you to silence. Especially, don't be afraid to be wrong or to make mistakes. It is only in the process of making such mistakes that you will develop your critical faculties and research skills and before you know it, you will be good at it.

For myself, if I haven't convinced readers that our governmental, corporate, and military entites lied about 9/11, and if the movement in general hasn't done so already, then there is no hope. If I am wrong, and you are indeed convinced, then it is your turn to pick up the slack.

This is my challenge to you: can you do it? Prove it.
_____________________________________________________________
Source
Let's just take the portions which can verified. I don't see a direct link to Titan yet, however this (sub)project is important.

On September 19th, 2000, Govexec.com describes a never before seen level of cooperation between the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon, that is expected to be involved in Project Trailblazer, an initiative to develop a 21st-century signals intelligence system that can crack new encryption software, hard-to-tap fiber-optic cables, and cellular phone transmissions and able to fight terrorism, referring already to Bin Laden and his millennium plot ("Y2K terrorist operation"). (1)

In 2001, the Trailblazer program was developed under the order of the NRO, with sub contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and took partly place in the wing of the Pentagon, which was later officially hit by Flight 77. (1)

On August 8, 2001, two days after Bush received a new PDB with a clear warning on Bin Laden; Booz, Allen, & Hamilton employee named James R. Clapper as head of NIMA (the National Imagery and Mapping Agency - the 'eyes of America'). (1)

Clapper, leads this project for the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), which at the same time not only develops new satellite capabilities (A NRO payload launched into space on September 8, 2001), but also worked on a terror drill for Sept 11th (9 AM), crashing planes into the headquarters, as later confirmed by NRO Officer John Fulton. (4)

On September 11th, Booz Allen Hamilton lost 3 employees in the Pentagon: Gerald Fisher, Terence Lynch, and Ernest Willcher. They apparently worked for the government on Trailblazer 1

Another original NSA-plan for Trailblazer was from 2 April 2001, then described as a program to develop analytic capabilities to meet the challenge of rapidly evolving, modern telecommunications" prime contracts were awarded to Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation and TRW (5). (2)

Trailblazer was much more than just an advanced spy and satellite program. Already in September 2000, SpaceNewsFeed revealed, that Trailblazer is part of the Trans Orbital Lunar Global Positioning Satellite Experiment. (3)

The reason for its importance is that the PNAC (7) proposes to control the new international commons of space and cyberspace and pave the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control (6) and TrailBlazer can play a vital role in both.

Launch was outsourced to Russia

TrailBlazer will be launched on the Dnepr rocket, along with several other payloads. The Dnepr is produced by ISC Kosmotras, a joint cooperative venture between the Russian Federation, Ukraine, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and several other countries. It is a conversion of the SS-18 ICBM (of the former USSR), the most powerful ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missile) ever built and can lift almost four metric tons into Low- Earth-Orbit. These missiles were scheduled for destruction under the START treaty, and under the treaty, 150 of the missiles can be converted into launch vehicles.

The Dnepr is launched out of Baikonur Cosmodrome in the Republic of Khazakstan (see also the U.S. State Department brief). At the Cosmodrome, the warheads are removed from the SS-18 missiles and replaced by spaceheads containing the payloads, then the rocket is launched from a special silo that has been adapted for commercial launches.

For further information on the Baikonur launch site, please visit Russian Space Web.com, a source of much information about the space program in Russia and the former USSR.

Source

[Anti_Illuminati]

Let's go back in history, to 1997.

Privatizing War

How affairs of state are outsourced to corporations beyond public control.

By Ken Silverstein
The Nation, July 28, 1997

The history of American foreign and military policy abounds with deception and scandal, with shadowy actors, monied interests and efforts to keep the public out of what are properly public decisions. Now those efforts have taken an unprecedented turn in scale and degree. Privatization, the process by which the responsibilities of government are transferred to unaccountable corporate hands, now occupies the halls of warmaking.

With little public knowledge or debate, the government has been dispatching private companies -- most of them with tight links to the Pentagon and staffed by retired armed forces personnel -- to provide military and police training to America's foreign allies. The government has also vastly expanded the use of private firms to support its own overseas military operations, including top-secret antidrug actions in Latin America, intelligence gathering and military assistance programs for U.S. clients.

The firms themselves are not eager to discuss their activities. Nor is the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls, which oversees much of the emerging field and which rejected my request for an on-the-record interview. A State Department official told me he could provide very little information even on background because of the need to protect the "proprietary information" of the companies involved (a loophole that makes the Freedom of Information Act in effect useless in this area). As a result, much information remains hidden behind government claims of secrecy or locked in the companies' accounting books.

But based on the testimony of those who will speak -- and most agreed to talk only on background or not for attribution -- it is clear that dozens of companies, ranging from a $1 billion high-tech giant like SAIC to small-scale operations run by retired Green Berets, are offering military training and related assistance to foreign governments at the bidding of the United States. "The [private training] programs are designed to further our foreign policy objectives," says a former high-level official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (D.I.A.). "If the government doesn't sanction it, the companies don't do it."

Among the big-league players are Military Professional Resources Inc. (M.P.R.I.), which is training two Balkan armies and seeks to expand into Africa; Vinnell, which trains the Saudi Arabian National Guard; and Betac, which works closely with the Pentagon's secretive Special Operations Command, which engages in covert activities in the Third World.

The corporate-government connection in such activities was given fine illustration on June 24, when the D.I.A. sponsored a closed-door symposium, "The Privatization of National Security Functions in Sub-Saharan Africa." On hand were M.P.R.I. and other U.S. private contractors, as well as Eeben Barlow, head of South Africa's notorious Executive Outcomes, which in the past few years has provided mercenaries to the governments of Angola and Sierra Leone, and Timothy Spicer of Sandline International, a British company whose hiring in January by the government of Papua New Guinea angered its army and sparked a coup. Spicer was accompanied by Sandline's U.S. representative, Bernie McCabe, a former Army Special Forces officer. The D.I.A. slapped a nonattribution policy on the event, but one participant told me, "There was a consensus among government officials and the companies that this sort of activity is going to greatly increase during the next few years."

The government defends its use of private firms, and says it would never allow them to dispatch mercenaries in support of a foreign government, as do Executive Outcomes and Sandline. "Training a military is a lot more than teaching guys how to shoot guns straight," says a State Department official, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. "The companies offer instruction in how to run a military in a democracy, subordination to civilian control and respect for human rights."

That explanation sounds suspiciously similar to the Pentagon's rationale for the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, where thousands of Latin American soldiers were supposedly trained to respect human rights only to launch vigorous careers as war criminals once they returned home. An alternative explanation is that the use of private military contractors allows the United States to pursue its geopolitical interests without deploying its own army, this being especially useful in cases where training is provided to regimes with ghastly records on human rights. "It's foreign policy by proxy," says Dan Nelson, formerly a top foreign policy adviser to Representative Richard Gephardt and now a professor at Old Dominion University. "Corporate entities are used to perform tasks that the government, for budgetary reasons or political sensitivities, cannot carry out."

The current situation differs in both scope and size from past practice, most famously revealed in the Iran/contra scandal. Here, the firms most heavily involved are not C.I.A. cutouts chiefly engaged in covert operations but multimillion-dollar corporations with diverse interests. Their work is sanctioned in the course of the ordinary business of government agencies and implemented not by foreign locals trained by the C.I.A. but by high-ranking U.S. military officers fresh out of the armed forces. Before offering military assistance to foreign governments, corporations must first apply for a license from the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls. "License requests are very carefully reviewed," an official at SAIC told me. "Even when you're just at the talking stage, there is a very high level of scrutiny."

The shrinking of the cold war military bureaucracy -- troop levels are down about 30 percent since the end of the cold war -- has pushed huge numbers of military veterans, from top brass to foot soldiers, into the private sector. The only marketable skill many of these people have is military and paramilitary expertise.

James Woods, who retired as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs in 1994 and now works as a Washington lobbyist at Cohen & Woods International, told me that numerous outfits headed by former Special Forces personnel seek to market military training to foreign governments. These firms, many of which are set up near domestic military bases, "basically consist of a retired military guy sitting in a spare bedroom with a fax machine and a Rolodex," he explains. "They serve as a gateway to the large pool of retired military personnel. When they are in between jobs there's not much to do."

But while this soldier-of-fortune element occupies a niche, it has had more and more difficulty landing anything beyond small-scale consulting contracts on counterterrorism or deals to provide protection for visiting V.I.P.s. For projects of scale, the freelance warriors have lost out badly to well-connected corporations stocked with elite government and military retired officials. As one Pentagon staffer told me, "Privatization is another way to reward the alumni." It's the revolving door all over again:

§ At M.P.R.I., twenty-two corporate officers are former high-ranking military figures. These include Gen. Carl Vuono, U.S. Army Chief of Staff during the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War; Gen. Ed Soyster, former head of the D.I.A.; and Gen. Frederick Kroesen, former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe.

§ Vinnell is owned by B.D.M., a Beltway megacompany controlled by the Carlyle Group, an investment firm headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, former White House budget chief Richard Darman and former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci. B.D.M.'s president, Philip Odeen, headed the Pentagon task force on reshaping the military for the twenty-first century.

§ Board members at SAIC have included two former defense secretaries, William Perry and Melvin Laird, and two former C.I.A. chiefs, John Deutch and Robert Gates.

For the government, privatization offers a number of advantages. In addition to providing plausible deniability about overseas entanglements, it allows Washington to shed military personnel while simultaneously retaining the capacity to influence and direct huge missions. Firms on contract can train an entire foreign army. By contrast, the Pentagon's International Military and Education Training Program (IMET) generally provides instruction to no more than a few dozen soldiers. The largest current IMET effort is in Honduras, where 266 soldiers and officers are being trained. "Private companies augment our ability to provide foreign training," says retired Lieut. Gen. Larry Skibbie, now at the American Defense Preparedness Association. "We'll see more and more of this as we continue to cut back on our uniformed forces."

When it comes to military training, the biggest player is M.P.R.I. Based in Alexandria, Virginia, the company was founded in 1987 by retired Army Gen. Vernon Lewis. A brochure boasts that M.P.R.I. -- which maintains a computer database with the names of 2,000 retired armed forces personnel -- houses "The World's Greatest Corporate Military Expertise" and has "business cells and/or field representatives at military installations across the U.S. and in overseas locations."

Last year the Bosnian government picked M.P.R.I. -- over competing bids from SAIC and B.D.M. -- to train its armed forces. The $400 million program is being paid for largely by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Brunei and Malaysia. The stated aim of the training effort, which is being supplemented with large-scale shipments of U.S. weapons to the Bosnian Army, is to deter Serbia's better-armed military. But with Serbia's army in disarray, many observers of the region increasingly worry that a newly trained and equipped Bosnian Army will be emboldened to attack Serbian forces after international forces withdraw, as they are scheduled to do next year.

M.P.R.I. also offers advice and training to the Croatian military, a relationship that began in April 1995 at one of the most intense periods of fighting in the Balkan war. M.P.R.I. dispatched a team to Croatia, headed by a number of retired officers, including General Vuono, Gen. Richard Griffitts and Gen. Crosbie Saint, who from 1988 to 1992 commanded the U.S. Army in Europe. A State Department spokesman, John Dinger, has said that M.P.R.I. helped the Croatians "avoid excesses or atrocities in military operations." M.P.R.I.'s spokesman, the retired D.I.A. chief Ed Soyster, told me that the company merely "offered advice about the role of the army in a democratic society."

"The Croatians hope to join NATO," he added, "and if you want to join the club you have to look like the members."

Just months after M.P.R.I. went into Croatia, that nation's army -- until then bumbling and inept -- launched a series of bloody offensives against Serbian forces. Most important was Operation Lightning Storm, the assault on the Krajina region during which Serbian villages were sacked and burned, hundreds of civilians were killed and some 170,000 people were driven from their homes.

Roger Charles, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and military researcher who has been honored for his work by the Investigative Reporters and Editors Association, is convinced that M.P.R.I. played an important role in the Krajina campaign. "No country moves from having a ragtag militia to carrying out a professional military offensive without some help," says Charles, who has closely monitored M.P.R.I.'s activities. "The Croatians did a good job of coordinating armor, artillery and infantry. That's not something you learn while being instructed about democratic values."

A Croatian liaison officer told the local press that just weeks before the offensive General Vuono held a secret top-level meeting at Brioni Island, off the coast of Croatia, with Gen. Varimar Cervenko, the architect of the Krajina campaign. In the five days preceding the attack, at least ten meetings were held between General Vuono and officers involved in the campaign.

In a sense, whether M.P.R.I. directed the Krajina campaign is secondary. "Once you provide training there's no way to control the way that the skills you've taught are used," says Loren Thompson, a military specialist at the conservative Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Given Croatia's record in the twentieth century, he says -- chiefly its collaboration with the Nazis -- "I'm not sure you want that country to have a professional army."

M.P.R.I. denies that it has helped arm the Croatians, but it was positioned to play at least an indirect role here as well. According to a retired government official who brokers military equipment deals, Zagreb was buying weapons from a German arms dealer, Ernst Werner Glatt, until at least late last year. In the 1980s, Glatt was the favorite arms merchant of the C.I.A., which chose him to move arms to the contras in Nicaragua and the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, among others. At one point Glatt was shipping $200 million worth of weapons per year, money that allowed him to purchase a country estate in Virginia, which he named the Black Eagle, a symbol of Nazi Germany.

During this same period Soyster, now of M.P.R.I., was working at the D.I.A., which was also doling out contracts to Glatt. The latter was paid lavish sums by the D.I.A. in the 1980s to procure Soviet weapons and have them shipped to the United States, from whence they would be sent to America's proxy troops in Latin America, Asia and Africa. After Soyster retired, he and Glatt became business partners on at least one weapons deal.

M.P.R.I.'s involvement in the Balkans is a telling case of "rewarding the alumni." Lieut. Gen. James Chambers served for thirty-six years in the Air Force, including a stint as director of contingency operations in Bosnia. Following his retirement, he took a vice presidency at M.P.R.I. Gen. John Sewall, now with the company in Croatia, before his retirement had served as the Pentagon's special adviser to the Muslim-Croat federation, created in 1994 with U.S. backing. The following year, Sewall and another officer made several trips to Bosnia and Croatia. European observers believed that their mission was to offer military advice, an activity then banned under a United Nations embargo. "If they are not involved in military planning, then what are they doing there?" a French commander complained at the time. "Are we supposed to believe Sewall and his people are tourists?"

None of this inspires confidence about M.P.R.I.'s expansion into Africa. The company has worked in Liberia, training the military to use U.S.-supplied arms and equipment. In 1995 it made a bid to the State Department to come to the aid of Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko, an overture that was rejected, given Washington's decision to abandon its longtime man in Africa. Most recently, State issued M.P.R.I. a license to train the army of Angola.

Beginning in the 1970s, the C.I.A. backed Jonas Savimbi's UNITA in its terror war in Angola to overthrow President Eduardo dos Santos, then supported by the Soviet Union. Now that, officially at least, a peace agreement has been signed and dos Santos has embraced free-market reforms, the Clinton Administration views Angola as a potentially important ally in Africa. Bringing it squarely into the American camp has, however, necessitated a little strong-arming. In 1993 the Angolan government retained the South African firm Executive Outcomes -- dominated by former soldiers of the apartheid regime -- to help it inflict a series of crippling military defeats on UNITA in exchange for oil and diamond concessions. In 1995, Clinton threatened to block U.N. aid to Angola unless dos Santos terminated his country's business with Executive Outcomes. Dos Santos duly complied (though many E.O. mercenaries continue to work for private security companies owned by Angolan officials) and then moved to engage M.P.R.I. at the Clinton Administration's urging, according to three separate sources familiar with the arrangement.

The deal, said to be worth millions, calls for M.P.R.I. to implement a full-scale training program with the army and police, including, one Beltway Angolan specialist tells me, the notorious Rapid Intervention Police. Known as the Ninjas, the R.I.P. -- equipped with helicopter gunships, mortars and armored personnel carriers -- has attacked the unarmed opposition and committed other serious human rights abuses. UNITA's troops, no pikers when it comes to murdering and terrorizing civilians, are to be incorporated into the army under the terms of the peace agreement and are also to receive the benefit of M.P.R.I.'s expertise. Currently, renewed fighting between UNITA and the government has delayed the dispatch of M.P.R.I.'s trainers.

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia a clutch of U.S. companies are training every branch of the armed forces, so much so that they have in effect turned the Saudi security apparatus, infamous for its use of torture, into a private subsidiary of the Pentagon. The trail for such activity was blazed by B.D.M.'s Vinnell, which came into the country in 1975. Prior to that, Vinnell had been in Vietnam, where its work prompted a Pentagon official to describe it to The Village Voice as "our own little mercenary army." Following U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia, Vinnell received a contract to train the Saudi Arabian National Guard. The SANG, which protects the royal family and strategic facilities such as oil installations, is deemed to be more reliable than the army. During the past decade it has more than doubled in size, growing to 75,000 men. Now Vinnell has 1,000 employees in Saudi Arabia, many of them U.S. Army Special Forces veterans. They are based at five National Guard sites and, according to a person who once applied to work for the company, they "instruct Saudi troops in using new weapons, supervise supply operations and offer tactical training to mechanized units."

The Saudi marine corps, created after the Gulf War, is overseen by another firm, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps. Booz-Allen, better known as one of the Beltway's biggest consulting firms, also runs the Saudi Armed Forces Staff College. "It's a very sizable contract," says a person familiar with the agreement. "They have about 200 people there, but that number could grow to 1,000. They're teaching senior-level military skills, including tactical training."

A company called O'Gara Protective Services -- this one in the private security business and staffed by former C.I.A. and Secret Service agents -- has been directly hired by Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan to protect members of the royal family (and their property), as well as to provide Saudi forces with security training. "The Saudis are beset by internal problems, so O'Gara's role is an important one," says a person who has worked with the firm.

SAIC assists the Saudi navy, officially with no more than systems analysis. However, a person familiar with the deal says the company develops software that controls Saudi air defenses, and plays an important role in running those operations. SAIC also brings Saudi military personnel to its headquarters in San Diego, where they are trained to run and maintain the navy's systems.

The State Department official who spoke to me was clear about the relationship of all this corporate activity to U.S. policy objectives: "Our troops are over there to protect vital U.S. interests. Are we really going to put our people at risk because a host country's forces aren't sufficiently prepared to fight with us?"

All this is just a piece of a vast private warfare industry that deserves closer scrutiny. Although my attempts to get detailed answers frequently elicited denials, "no comment"s and government claims of secrecy, I have pieced together substantial additional information about the growing field.

One company that merits examination is DynCorp of Reston, Virginia. It does contract work for the C.I.A., and, before it went private, its stockholders included former agency boss James Woolsey. DynCorp is one of several firms contracted by the State Department to train and deploy the Haitian National Police (H.N.P.), which has replaced the army as Haiti's leading security force. After U.N. troops withdraw from Haiti, the Clinton Administration wants DynCorp's trainers to stay on as technical advisers to the police.

Although an improvement over the infamous Tonton Macoutes, the record of the H.N.P., in which 130 former Haitian military officers have assumed command positions, includes "extrajudicial executions, the unjustified or disproportionate use of lethal force, and beatings," according to Human Rights Watch. A confidential memorandum from the U.S. Embassy in Haiti dated January 1997 and addressed to the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Department states: "Over 300 HNP agents have received specialized training in crowd control.... Embassy expects crowd control to be a major HNP task in 1997 as the stagnant economy engenders greater frustration among the populace."

The precise role of DynCorp in preparing this "crowd control" force is difficult to gauge, particularly as company officials refused to return repeated phone calls seeking explanations. However, DynCorp's previous record should set off alarm bells.

In the early 1990s the company was hired by the State Department for the ostensible purpose of maintaining helicopters then on loan to Peruvian antidrug police. In 1992 one of those helicopters was shot down over a major coca-growing region, and three DynCorp employees died in the crash. Among them was Robert Hitchman, and he was not in Peru to repair helicopters.

A onetime Marine Corps fighter pilot and covert-ops specialist, Hitchman worked for Air America, the C.I.A.'s airline, in the 1960s. Two decades later he turned up in Libya, where he helped run former C.I.A. agent Ed Wilson's military support and training operations for Muammar el-Qaddafi. (Wilson is currently serving a fifty-two-year term in federal prison for selling explosives to Libya and plotting to kill federal prosecutors and witnesses.) In Joe Goulden's The Death Merchant, a biography of Wilson, one former colleague of Hitchman described him as a brilliant helicopter pilot and "a son of a bitch who could look death in the face and chuck it under the chin; absolute ice water."

An official U.S. investigation never determined the cause of the crash, but suggested that crew fatigue was to blame. Meanwhile, Shining Path claimed responsibility. I reached Hitchman's son, Robert 3d, who confirmed that his father was shot down by the guerrillas, a fact, he says, that U.S. government officials including then-Secretary of State Jim Baker asked him to keep quiet. "They didn't want the public to know the full extent of American involvement in drug wars in Latin America," he says.

According to Hitchman 3d, the real mission of his father and other DynCorp employees -- who included another Air America veteran, James Sweeney, and operated out of a base run by Peruvian police and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration -- was to ferry in D.E.A. agents to blow up cocaine labs, burn coca fields and coordinate aerial eradication programs. Hitchman was also training Peruvian pilots to fly helicopters in combat operations. He told his son that DynCorp was working with the D.E.A. in Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia, as well. Indeed, DynCorp is now under contract to fly crop-dusters in Colombia to eradicate coca plants. One of its planes was shot down in January, under circumstances that have never been fully explained.

Involved in equally murky activity is Betac, a company that, like DynCorp, does contract work for the C.I.A. Betac also works closely with the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. The command, which was created following the bungled rescue of fifty U.S. hostages in Iran in 1980, oversees Navy Seals, Army Rangers and Delta Force. These elite units specialize in covert operations in the Third World, train antidrug police in Latin America and assist U.S. clients with "internal security."

A former special operations officer now in the private sector tells me that SOCOM has hired Betac to assist it in a range of activities, including overseas military training. Betac's work with the Command has been facilitated by the past two chiefs of SOCOM, retired four-star generals Carl Stiner and Wayne Downing, whom it has retained as consultants. SOCOM spokesman George Grimes told Jeff Moag of the National Security News Service, who assisted me with some research for this story, that he'd never heard of Betac and denied that any such firm worked with the command. Meanwhile, Betac's Web site announces that the company maintains offices with a staff of four at SOCOM headquarters.

Clearly, the use of private firms provides the Pentagon with perfect cover to run sensitive overseas operations. Sometimes these are further obscured by the routine or even "humanitarian" nature of the duties for which the firms are contracted. In 1995 a company called Ronco was authorized to do de-mining work in Rwanda, which has become a close U.S. military ally. At the time, Rwanda was barred by U.N. embargo from receiving any military supplies. Kathi Austin, an Africa specialist and consultant to Human Rights Watch, was then in the region and learned that Ronco was actually importing small-scale military equipment, including explosives and armored vehicles. With the Pentagon's approval, she says, this equipment was turned over to the Rwandan military.

From postwar C.I.A. operations in Iran and Guatemala, through the Reagan Administration's wars in Central America, and on to recent C.I.A. support for a botched coup against Saddam Hussein, the U.S. government has consistently sought to keep the public in the dark about its overseas adventures. By adding a new layer of secrecy and unaccountability, the use of private contractors offers the government even greater opportunities to conduct covert foreign policy.

Congress reviews and can restrict the dispatch of Pentagon military trainers abroad. It has no authority over private trainers, who need only get a license from the State Department, a process that happens far from public view. The Pentagon is obliged to respond to inquiries, if not always forthrightly, when U.S. troops are deployed abroad. Retired generals and private companies have far more leeway in evading questions from the press or Congress. A former Congressional staffer who is familiar with the use of private military contractors described the system as a "nonsexy but far bigger Oliver North-style enterprise."

"If the D.O.D. was directly involved you'd have a whole network of Congressional offices providing oversight, even if it's not always sufficient," he says. "When you turn these tasks over to a contractor, the only oversight comes from an overworked civil servant in the federal bureaucracy."

"Privatization" is the name for this trend in foreign and military policy, but it is a rather bland word for what it signifies. Loren Thompson of the de Tocqueville Institution put the case more vividly: "The only difference between what these firms do and what mercenaries do is that the companies have gained the imprimatur of government for their actions."


Ken Silverstein is co-editor of "CounterPunch," an investigative newsletter published in Washington, D.C.

[rawiron1]

Noblis is one of our IT contractors for my agency.

Jason

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://www.jhuapl.edu/urw_symposium/Proceedings.aspx

Featured Speakers

Mr. James Locher, III, Executive Director of the Project for National Security Reform, will provide his unique perspective on imperatives for interagency actions and national security challenges. Other confirmed speakers include Dr. Stephen Flynn, from the Council on Foreign Relations, who will apply the principle of resiliency across the federal and private industry sectors; Professor Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University, who will update us on terrorism trends and future directions; Mr. James Rickards, Omnis, Inc., will address the potential of financial and economic attacks in the context of a global economy; Prof Michael Klare, author of Resource Wars; Mr. Eric Coulter, of OSD(PA&E) who will offer insights as to how unrestricted warfare creates imperatives for analytic approaches that integrate diverse interagency capabilities; and Mr. Dan Wolf, Cyber Pack Ventures Inc., who will discuss actual and potential threats to information systems, networks, and the computers that have become integral to our lives. To provide a critical intelligence perspective, we have invited Ms. Karen Monaghan, National Intelligence Council.

Senior Level Panel

The Symposium’s culminating event is a panel of senior-level government and military leaders—such as DoD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Planning, Deputy Director, Strategic Assessments and Irregular Warfare, as well as senior representatives from the National Intelligence Council, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security the State Department, Treasury Department, and the National Counterterrorism Center. These distinguished panelists will offer their perspectives on integrating strategy, analysis, and technology to support interagency actions in response to national security threats. Panelists will then take questions from the audience.

What is Unrestricted Warfare?

There are no rules; nothing is forbidden. We encounter a national security threat different from the conventional warfare for which we have become preeminent in the world. Adversaries employing unrestricted warfare use many modalities to create integrated attacks exploiting diverse areas of vulnerability in support of their grand strategy. Unrestricted warfare battlefields reach beyond the physical domain to include culture, information networks, economics and finance, natural resources and energy. This 2009 URW Symposium will focus on Imperatives for Interagency Actions to characterize potential lines of attack representing threats that pose significant impact to national security, and demand an integrated interagency response.

__________________________________________________________
Unrestricted Warfare Symposium, Sponsored by JHU's APL and SAIS

http://www.ctovision.com/2009/02/unrestricted-warfare-symposium-sponsored-by-jhus-apl-and-sais.html

For enterprise technologists and national security professionals and most of all for those who fit both of those descriptions, please check out Johns Hopkins University's 2009 Unrestricted Warfare Symposium at:  http://www.jhuapl.edu/urw_symposium  This symposium seeks to advance our understanding of and solutions for some very complex problems related to our nation's defense.  I'll be speaking on a panel at the conference (on issues of cyber war and cyber defense) and hope to see you there.

The following is from an e-mail from Dr. Ron Luman (Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory National Security Analysis Department Head)

National Security Community Colleagues: This is a reminder that the Johns Hopkins University's 2009 Unrestricted Warfare Symposium will be held 24-25 March 2009, and I encourage you to register now at http://www.jhuapl.edu/urw_symposium/.

The fourth annual symposium is in Laurel, MD at JHU's Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), and is jointly sponsored by APL and the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Last year more than 300 participants from government, industry, and academia interacted with distinguished speakers and expert panelists who addressed national security issues from three perspectives: strategy, analysis, and technology. In 2009, this uniquely synergistic approach will be applied to the challenge of identifying interagency imperatives and capabilities.

The symposium presentations and panels are organized around four potential unrestricted lines of attack - cyber, resource, economic/financial, and terrorism. We'll begin each session with a discussion of the potential for such attacks and then expert roundtable panelists will discuss imperatives for interagency action, offering ideas for enhancing interagency capabilities. A fifth session will focus on the role of analysis in identifying and assessing interagency approaches for preventing and combating these types of attacks.

I am particularly pleased that The Honorable James R. Locher, III, Executive Director of the Project for National Security Reform, will open the symposium as our keynote speaker, providing the Project's timely findings and recommendations for interagency reform. Throughout the two days featured speakers and distinguished panelists, include: Dr. George Akst, MCCDC; Mr. Eric Coulter, OSD(PA&E); Dr. Richard Cooper, Harvard University; Dr. Stephen Flynn, Council on Foreign Relations; Representative Jane Harman; Professor Bruce Hoffman, Georgetown University; Professor Michael Klare, Hampshire College; Dr. Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations; Dr. Matthew Levitt, Washington Institute; Dr. Pete Nanos (DTRA); Mr. James Rickards, Omnis, Inc.; Mr. Frank Ruggiero (Department of State); Dr. Khatuna Salukvadze, Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Mr. Dan Wolf, Cyber Pack Ventures Inc.; Mr. Bob Work, CSBA, to name a few.

The attached announcement identifies confirmed speakers and other essential information. We encourage dynamic networking, and to facilitate audience participation, we will again be utilizing electronic groupware to collect comments, insights, and questions. The collection of papers and transcripts of discussions will again be published as Proceedings, in both hard copy and electronic form. The 2006 -2008 Proceedings, the current agenda/speakers, and 2009 registration details can be found at the symposium website: http://www.jhuapl.edu/urw_symposium/.

Your experience in national security and defense will contribute unique perspectives and challenging questions to our understanding of Unrestricted Warfare, and I look forward to seeing you next month.

    Best regards,
    Ron Luman, General Chair

I hope to see you all there.

 
Symposium Attachment:
http://www.ctovision.com/URW2009Flyer%204Feb-1.pdf
__________________________________________________________
Cybersecurity in the Federal Government
http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/Cybersecurity_in_Federal_Government.pdf

Booz Allen “Cyber-War” Simulation Gives Leaders Taste of Real Thing


Andy Singer

Cyber attack simulation demonstrated the need for a new way of thinking about cyber security that focuses on a megacommunity approach.

A massive cyber attack on America spreads through government and industry, taking down telecommunications and damaging financial Web sites. Air travel is disrupted, and passengers are stranded at airports across the country.

Leaders of government, business and public institutions need to collaborate, but communication breaks down amid mutual distrust. And the crisis worsens…

That scenario played out in Washington during a first-of-its-kind “cyber attack” simulation designed and executed by Booz Allen Hamilton in partnership with Business Executives for National Security (BENS), which sponsored the event.

“The No. 1 insight was, we need to talk to each other,” says Andy Singer, a Booz Allen principal. [INSERT, SEE:  "Computers can't talk to each other" lie is over, give it the F*CK UP NWO http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=83162.0 ]

The December event, Cyber Strategic Inquiry 2008, vividly demonstrated the need for a new way of thinking about cyber security that focuses on a “megacommunity™” approach, he says. In a megacommunity, government, business and civil society collaborate, rather than compete, to advance shared vital interests.

More than 230 senior government officials, business executives, members of academia and others took part in the simulation. They formed teams representing various government agencies, industry sectors and the public, and were asked to respond to the cyber attack. The exercise immersed the participants in the scenario, and simulated what might happen.

Booz Allen, which has been in the forefront of thought leadership on cyber security, conducted the simulation to help find ways leaders can work together to protect the country from cyber threats. Many experts increasingly fear that terrorists, organized criminals, hackers and even nation-states have an ever-increasing ability to launch cyber attacks that could harm national security, the financial system, and public and private infrastructures.

In a keynote speech at the exercise, Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, warned that cyber threats to America are growing, and he called for a new model of collaboration between government, business and the public.

Singer says the simulation “really captured the imagination” of those who took part. “Rather than being just a symposium or a conference, it ended up being a learning event,” he says. “It was a rare occasion that gave the participants a moment where they could really think things through.”

A key challenge, he says, was to create a very believable scenario, one that would require the leaders to make the same kinds of decisions they would face had the cyber attack been real. Participants said afterward they gained invaluable knowledge.

“People walked away saying, ‘I’m empowered to do something about this, and there are people I can work with,’ ” says Singer.  That was one of the goals of Cyber Strategic Inquiry 2008, he says. “It takes it out of the textbooks and articles and makes people experience it. It takes us from believing to knowing.”

The simulation created a “playbook” that points the way for government, business and civil society to unite against cyber threats, he says. “The findings themselves won’t be groundbreakers, but putting them together provides a coherency and comprehensiveness.”

Says Singer, “It’s not about solving the problem. It’s about what needs to be solved, and what are some of the possibilities to solve it.”

story posted January 27, 2009
Additional Information

    * Listen to a January 30, 2009, Federal News Radio interview with Senior Vice President Mark Gerencser about a two-day cyber attack simulation held in Washington, DC.
________________________________________________________________________
Booz Allen Lends Expertise to Congressional Panel on National Security Space

An independent panel that reported to Congress on the need for more U.S. leadership in the security of space had two members from Booz Allen Hamilton.

Booz Allen Vice President Keith Hall and Principal Edward Anderson were part of the Independent Assessment Panel of the Organization and Management of National Security Space, which presented its report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

The panel found that while space is of critical importance to our national intelligence and warfighting capabilities, without significant improvement in the leadership and management of National Security Space programs, the U.S. will soon lose its advantage.

“We’re on a path toward losing our lead,” says Hall, who was asked to participate on the panel by Chairman A. Thomas Young. “The sooner we reverse the trend the better.”

“Without change, U.S. leadership is going to erode,” says Hall. “This is bad for industry, bad for the economy. This is not an area where we want to surrender leadership.”

The panel found that although the U.S. has a number of policies related to National Security Space, it has no strategy to ensure that it remains the world leader, says Hall.

Anderson says U.S. leadership is in “significant jeopardy” because more countries have access to space technology, and because “adversaries are gaining military capability.”

In the past, he says, “We were able to operate in space with some impunity, but that’s no longer the case.”

The panel heard from many experts in government and industry, and “probably the most critical part is that no one is in charge,” says Anderson. “And because no one is in charge, everyone thinks they’re in charge.”

The panel recommended:

    * Establishing and executing a national space strategy, led by the U.S. president.
    * Creating a National Security Space Authority in support of the Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence.
    * Establishing a National Security Space Organization that would consolidate all the disparate elements of space research and development, acquisitions and operations.
    * Ensuring that the core group of government professionals responsible for developing and acquiring complex space systems receive the necessary training, education and management.

Hall, who is based in Herndon, leads the firm’s work for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and for other initiatives associated with the intelligence and space markets. Formerly the director of the NRO, he was responsible for the acquisition and operation of all U.S. space-based reconnaissance and intelligence systems. He is also a former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Air Force.

Anderson, a retired Army lieutenant general who commanded the Army’s Army Space and Missile Defense Command, serves as a Booz Allen business leader for three markets:  Missile Defense Operations, Army Programs and Air Force Space Mission Support.  He is based in Colorado Springs, Col..

story posted February 17, 2009
________________________________________________________________________

Keith R. Hall [Scroll up to read about him again in my 1st post in this thread]

Based in Herndon, Keith Hall is a Booz Allen Hamilton Vice President who leads the firm’s work for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and for other initiatives associated with the intelligence and space markets.

Mr. Hall joined the firm in 2002 following 32 years of public service, including roles as Director of the NRO and Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Air Force. As NRO director, he was responsible for the acquisition and operation of all U.S. space-based reconnaissance and intelligence systems. At the Air Force, he provided overall supervision of space-related issues with primary emphasis on policy, strategy, and planning. He was nominated to that position by President Clinton, confirmed by the Senate, and retained by President Bush.

Prior to heading the NRO, Mr. Hall served as the executive director of Intelligence Community Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. He was a professional staff member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and budget examiner at the White House Office of Management and Budget. He served nine years in Army intelligence, including two tours in which he commanded overseas operational intelligence units.

Today, Mr. Hall assists in the development of a long-term business strategy for Booz Allen and helps shape the firm’s global strategic security offerings. As client service officer for the NRO, he ensures that all the firm’s capabilities are integrated to best support that client. He also leads Booz Allen’s Space Steering Group, which coordinates business activities across all U.S. government civil, military, and intelligence space activities. He is a key leader in the firm’s Mission Integration investment, focusing on intelligence community collection activities.

His key areas of expertise include:

    * National security executive processes and management

    * Space-based reconnaissance and intelligence systems

    * Counterintelligence

    * Security policy and resource management

A recognized speaker who has appeared at numerous conferences and symposiums, Mr. Hall has received many prestigious awards throughout his career, including the Professional Achievement Award from the Office of Management and Budget; the CIA Director’s Award; and several distinguished service awards from the Department of Defense and U.S. Air Force. He also received the American Astronautical Society’s Military Astronautics Award, and the National Space Club’s most notable award, the Dr. Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy.

Mr. Hall attended Clark University in Massachusetts, where he earned an M.P.A. He also has a B.A. degree and an honorary doctorate from Alfred University.

profile updated April 2008
________________________________________________________
This is where this shit gets real, note that the below text is straight from Booz Allen Hamilton's own website:

http://www.boozallen.com/consulting-services/cyber

Cybersecurity is growing in importance due in large part to the way the Internet has become an essential part of our daily life and the fact that modern computing power lowers the entry barriers while it increases the number of malicious actors.  Because cyber activity has become such an integral part of our operating environment, cybersecurity must be treated as a fundamental cornerstone of an organization’s mission.  Experience has shown that cybersecurity cannot be an afterthought or quick fix.  The experts at Booz Allen Hamilton believe that cybersecurity must be a core thread in an organization’s DNA.

Booz Allen’s mission integration framework provides a mechanism to understand what other expertise must be brought to bear.  Strategy and policy, operations, technology, people and culture, and management must be leveraged to avoid the thinking that technology alone can solve this complex challenge facing our clients.
Learn more about our approach to cyber in specific markets:

    * Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI)—Booz Allen supports agencies responsible for complying with the CNCI.  We recognize that cybersecurity is a complex, multifaced challenge requiring a multidimensional response.  While we agree that technology is an important starting point, Booz Allen views the cyber challenge in a much broader context.  We see it as a mission integration challenge. In fact, we believe we can meet the goals of the CNCI only by integrating technology, operations, culture, management, and policy changes.

    * Commercial/Private Sector—The fundamental challenge facing today’s business leaders is how to ensure that business information is available to the right people—and only the right people—at the right time, every time, without breaking the bank. Understanding and resolving the tradeoffs in meeting this challenge requires a cybersecurity framework that translates information security requirements into business value propositions that balance business demands with defensible levels of cost, control, and residual risk. Booz Allen works with commercial clients to create an environment in which cybersecurity becomes a seamless part of every business process, actively supporting the creation of business value and growth.

Career Opportunities

Explore career opportunities at the leading edge of cyber and cybersecurity.

Booz Allen’s Cyber Experts and Events in the News

In December 2008, media outlets including Reuters, ABC News, and NextGov reported on a strategic simulation designed to increase understanding of the cyber security vulnerabilities facing our nation that was sponsored by the Business Executives for National Security (BENS) who partnered with Booz Allen to stage the event.  To learn more about this event and Booz Allen's involvement, read the December 10 Federal Computer Week article entitled, "Cyberattack Simulation Highlights Security Challenges."

On September 22, 2008, Federal Computer Week cited Booz Allen's Mark Gerencser in two articles about the Bush administration's cybersecurity initiative, also known as CNCI.  The articles are entitled "Unlocking The National Cybersecurity Initiative" and "Upcoming Transition Creates Uncertainty."

The April 28, 2008, issue of Government Computer News featured an interview with Natalie Givans entitled "Security Gets into the Mix."  Givans talks about her experiences analyzing and designing security for a variety of government and commercial information and communication systems.
________________________________________________________
You know why I highly emphasized the 2nd to last paragraph cited from Booz Allen themselves?  Here's why:



Source

Unlocking the national cybersecurity initiative
By Brian Robinson Sep 17, 2008

The cybersecurity initiative launched by the Bush administration earlier this year remains largely cloaked in secrecy, but it’s already clear that it could have a major and far-reaching effect on government IT operations in the future.

Everything from mandated security measures and standard desktop configurations across government to a recast Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) could influence the way agencies buy and manage their IT.

Overseeing all of this will be a central office run by the Homeland Security Department, the first time that the government’s efforts in cybersecurity will run through a single office tasked with coordinating the work of separate federal cybersecurity organizations.

“It’s both an effort to better organize existing cybersecurity initiatives as well as to promote a series of new initiatives,” said Amit Yoran, chief executive officer of network security vendor netWitness and a former director of DHS National Cyber Security Division. “I think it is noteworthy that there are a number of new programmatic efforts that haven’t existed before, and that will create new capabilities and functionality.”

There’s still a long way to go, and it will take a huge effort to implement the measures, but Yoran said he thinks some agencies are already starting to appreciate the effect the initiative will have, even if they still don’t have all the details.

Hold on a minute!!!! Let's stop right there:  AMIT YORAN--BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON IS PROUDLY REFERENCING HIM. WHAT THE F*CK!?  BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN FALSE FLAG TERRORISM, AND IS AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS! 

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=25861.msg104458#msg104458

Infragard--Join now and get your own license to kill!!!
InfowarCon 2007

InfowarCon Advisory Board: Dr. Dan Kuehl, National Defense University; Amit Yoran, NetWitness; Mark Rasch, FTI; Dorothy Denning, DoD; Richard Forno, Infowarrior.org; Lars Nicander, CATS; Bruce Brody, CACI.

InfowarCon Sponsors & Partners Include: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Mandiant, Netwitness, Purifile, Secure Computing, Lincoln Group, White Wolf Security, Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3), (ISC)2; Homeland Defense Journal, Government Security News, Homeland Defense Week, Officer.com, Continuity Insights, InfraGard National Members Alliance, ISSA NOVA, Terrorism Research Center and National Defense University.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=post;quote=56809;topic=15262.0;num_replies=5;sesc=4ca4c454d256110f7cc58237c69daee9

Tangled Stinking Mess: Kerik, Rudy, Tasers, 9/11, Khashoggi, More...

To CIA,In-Q-Tel, Amit Yoran re SRA International, Mantas Inc stock fraud money laundering

http://www.maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/11841.php

Photo: Amit Yoran, the Israeli "Cyber Security Czar" appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003. Yoran has held various positions since the 1990s in which he oversaw computer security for the Dept. of Defense computers.

In June 2005, Yoran joined the board of directors of Guardium, Inc., another Mossad-spawned "provider of database security solutions" based in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Guardium is linked with Ptech, an apparent Mossad "cut out" computer security company linked with the 9/11 attacks.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=post;quote=83959;topic=21681.120;num_replies=201;sesc=4ca4c454d256110f7cc58237c69daee9
Voter Fraud Recount Revealed: AIPAC/Rockefeller!!!!!!!!!!!!

PTECH?
PTECH ?

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6427

The White House issued on Jan. 8 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, also known as National Security Presidential Directive 54, the policy that apparently established the cybersecurity initiative. However that wasn’t verified because  the document itself was classified.

Some details emerged during the next few months through congressional testimony, lawmakers’ inquiries, and various speeches and presentations, but to date, few specifics have been made public.

In April, DHS published a fact sheet about the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) that listed various measures that were being taken to prevent future attacks on U.S. computer systems, including the expansion of several existing programs and the creation of a National Cybersecurity Center (NCSC), which will serve as the focus for improving federal government network defenses.

[INSERT, SEE:  Live Free or Die Hard 2: Ptech/CVE.MITRE.ORG/DHS/Horizons/EA/IT Governance/USAID
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=80222.0 ]

Rod Beckstrom, a well-known technology entrepreneur, was appointed the center’s director in March. More recently, Steven Chabinsky, deputy director of the Joint Interagency Cyber Task Force, a part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, spoke at the Symantec Government Symposium in July and described some of the work being done under the CNCI. That discussion was probably the most popular session during the entire symposium, said Tiffany Jones, who leads Symantec’s government relations operation in Washington.

Jones, who worked on cybersecurity initiatives with Richard Clarke when he was the Bush administration’s counterterrorism leader, said the CNCI is a set of programs that, at a minimum, places a renewed focus on cybersecurity activities. “I’m looking on this as a catalyst to push cybersecurity much more proactively than it has been in the past,” she said.

Public details

There are three programs that have been identified publicly as part of CNCI, each having immediate impact on agencies:

    * Trusted Internet Connections (TIC): First announced by the Office of Management and Budget in November 2007, this program is designed to reduce the number of external connections that agencies have to the Internet to just a few centralized gateways that can be better monitored for security.

In January, more than 4,300 agency Internet connections existed, and those had been cut to some 2,700 by June. The target is less than 100 connections.

    * Einstein II: Einstein is a system that automatically monitors data traffic on government networks for potential threats. As a program under the CNCI, Einstein will be upgraded to include intrusion-detection technology.

Also, participation in Einstein for those agencies managing Internet access points will no longer be voluntary, as it was before. If Einstein finds a connection is not being properly managed, DHS will be able to shut it down.

    * Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC): This program, initiated by OMB last year, mandates that agencies adopt a common security protocol for their desktop systems long advocated by the National Security Agency, the Defense Information Systems Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

As part of the CNCI, NIST proposed in February to extend the FDCC to other operating systems, applications and network devices beyond the existing support for Windows XP and Vista.

Prepare for change

FISMA is one major element of government cybersecurity oversight that isn’t currently a part of the CNCI but could be greatly influenced by it in the future, observers say. The five year-old law requires agencies to report on how they are following certain security processes, but critics have complained that it’s become nothing more than a check-the-box exercise for agencies and has done little to actually improve security.

There’s now talk in Congress about a reform of FISMA that could include many of the elements being proposed in the CNCI and about new ways to make security a more ingrained part of agency processes, Jones said. Given the CNCI’s low-profile introduction, some agency officials may not appreciate the significance of the changes the program may pose, said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The expansion of Einstein, for example, is a major change because it mandates the use of network security monitoring tools that are controlled by an entity outside the agencies. “Before, they would do this [monitoring] themselves and not necessarily be forthcoming if anything happened,” he said. “Now it’s out of their hands.”

The administration has briefed some agency CIOs on what’s in store with the CNCI, but it’s likely that information has not percolated through to other levels of agencies, Lewis said. “At some point, they will go to do things and be told they can’t do it,” Lewis said. “That’s when they’ll find that certain things have already happened.”

With such programs as TIC and FDDC now being mandates, some agencies will have to change their business practices, said Mark Gerencser, a senior partner at Booz Allen Hamilton. As the number of Internet points-of-presence are reduced, for example, what effect will that have on their mission? “No one’s really looked at that yet,” he said. “There’ll need to be trade-offs between business needs and security, and agencies will have to manage the impact on their missions and then evolve their business models.”

Andy Singer, the principal in charge of cyber integration at BAH, said he believes the CNCI will force an alignment shift among agencies. A recently retired Navy rear admiral, he led the Navy mission integration of computer network attack, defense and exploitation.

In DOD, various sectors have learned how to work together by crossing the traditional boundaries of their authority, he said. DOD overall has treated cybersecurity as a national security issue and, as a result, has been more effective than others in this area.

“On the civilian side, each agency has up to now been responsible for its own little [security] realm,” Singer said. “Now they’ll have to start doing it all together with the DHS in the lead.” Bob Frisbie, vice president of cybersecurity at Northrop Grumman, noted that there have been past efforts to improve government cybersecurity measures. But none of them attempted to put anyone in charge of a central office responsible for coordinating efforts, he said, something DHS is now trying to establish.

“The metrics for cyber defense have been very elusive so far,” he said. “The way to measure how successful [the CNCI] will be is when the Cyber Center gets fully up and running, which will probably be some time late next year.” However, before then, a major indication of eventual success will be how Congress handles the administration’s request for CNCI funding.

Although no firm figures are available, published reports suggest the multiyear CNCI could eventually cost anywhere from $18 billion to $30 billion. DHS has asked for about $200 million in the fiscal 2009 budget to fund its CNCI efforts.

And it’s also not clear how much oversight DHS and other agencies involved in CNCI will be willing to cede to Congress as a necessary quid pro quo for lawmakers committing to the initiative.

With the lessons of other attempts to enforce better security throughout government without the necessary funding, such as HSPD-12, many people are naturally skeptical of this new effort. So the first hurdle it has to leap over is next month’s decisions by Congress on fiscal 2009 appropriations bills.

Will there be real money attached to the CNCI?

“That’s what we are all waiting to see,” Jones said.
__________________________________________________________


See this thread in reference to EVERYTHING PROMIS/Ptech/Choicepoint/Infragard/DIEBOLD=World ID/Carbon Tax/IP v6] http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=79634.0
__________________________________________________________
http://www.boozallen.com/consulting-services/cyber
Preparing for the Next Game – Speech given by Mark Gerencser at the AFCEA "Cyberspace: Challenges and Solutions for National Security" Solution Series

http://www.boozallen.com/about/40026730/gerencser

Mark Gerencser Booz Allen Hamilton Senior Vice President

http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/caf/work/grossman_2006_04_06_06.ppt.ppt

Why is the AFCEA a big deal?
__________________________________________________________
Sponsored by:  AFCEA International—Bethesda Chapter and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               
Date and Time:     Thursday, April 13, 2006, 8:30 AM to 12:00 PM
Location:    American Institute of Architects (AIA) Building
                       1735 New York Avenue NW, 2nd Floor
                                 Washington, DC
***************************************************************************
8:30AM   Registration and Coffee

9:00AM   AFCEA and EPA Welcome   
      Linda Berdine, AFCEA Board Member
John Sullivan, Chief Architect and Assistant Division Director,, EPA
 
9:15AM       CIO Council Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (AIC) Report
      Lisa Schlosser, CIO of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Co-Chair of AIC

9:30AM        Migrating to a Network Centric Environment - Colonel John Rudolph, Air Force   
                 
10:45AM   Federal Data Architecture
      Suzanne Acar, Senior Enterprise Data Architect, Department of the Interior
       Bryan Aucoin, Chief Architect for the Director of National Intelligence Chief Information Officer

11:45AM    Closing and Adjourn

Open Collaboration: Networking Health Information Technology

Tuesday, April 18, at the National Science Foundation, Ballston, VA from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm
Collaborative Expedition Workshop #50
Please RSVP to Renee.hughes@gsa.gov or  202-501-4083.
Workshop Agenda: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ExpeditionWorkshop

/OpenCollaboration_NetworkingHealthInformationTechnology_2006_04_18

You are invited to join any of the Communities of Practice at http://www.gsa.gov/collaborate

Learn how to participate in these communities through the April 28 orientation to the Collaborative Work Environment (including wiki usage) of the GSA Intergovernmental Solutions Division.

SOA for E-Government Conference

Tuesday, May 23 and Wednesday, May 24, starting at 8:30 am

Sponsored by the Federal CIO Council's Architecture and Infrastructure Committee and The MITRE Corporation

This event is open to government personnel and contractors.

This event will be held at the MITRE 1 Auditorium in McLean, Virginia
RSVP by Wednesday, May 17, 2006 http://www.mitre.org/register/soa
Registration is required and is limited to 250 people attending in person
See http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SOAforEGovernment_2006_05_2324

Enterprise Architecture Management Guide

Haiping Luo  haiping.luo@va.gov  202-273-6271
 
Chapter 1. Introduction to the Enterprise Architecture Discipline:
Beryl Bellman, California State University and FEAC Institute;
Felix Rausch, FEAC Institute
Chapter 2. Enterprise Architecture Theory:
Michael Tiemann, Booz Allen Hamilton
Chapter 3. Enterprise Architecture Design:
Rian Mey, USDA Forest Service & Adaptive
Chapter 4. Enterprise Architecting Lifecycle Management:
Klaus Niemann, act! consulting GmbH, Germany
Chapter 5. Enterprise Architecture Program Management:
Charles Muizers, SAIC
Lilian Penna, Booz Allen Hamilton
Chapter 6. Enterprise Architecture Use Types:
Bill Graca, gedas USA & the Enterprise Architecture Interest Group (EAIG)

[Anti_Illuminati]

Cloud Computing Wargames !!

“A wargame is a game that represents a military operation.”
 “Military simulations, also known informally as war games, are simulations in which theories of warfare can be tested and refined without the need for actual hostilities”

For ages, simulations and wargames have been used by the military to prepare for eventual future operations. During the Cold War, countless battles between the red and blue forces were set-up, run and reset in preparation for the conflict that thankfully never came. Some contend that these wargames, in fact, were instrumental in preventing a global nuclear holocaust.

As an outgrowth of this apparent success, business war games also came in vogue as a tool to help managers develop and execute business strategies more successfully. In 2005 there was actually an all-day “Battle for Clicks” war game between students from MIT Sloan School of Management and Harvard Business School. This game, run by Fuld & Co., a Cambridge-based strategic intelligence consulting firm, was the first such competition involving students from these two world-class business schools.

In a unique take on this concept, in 2006, Booz Allen Hamilton took business wargaming one step further. As reported by Government Computing News, the CIO Wargame, a BAH creation, combines the basics of craps and Monopoly to simulate how CIOs, chief architects and other program managers make decisions. The game's stated goal is to bring projects into the operation and maintenance phase and earn as many mission value points as possible, while taking steps to reduce the risk of failures and setbacks. The team with the most points after five rounds won. Like in Monopoly, players had to make strategic investment decisions on which projects and IT capabilities to bet on; like in craps, the roll of the dice often determined how well a project paid off.

I’m happy to report that the CIO Wargame is now being updated! The new Cloud Computing Wargame (CCW) represents a major evolution of the original concept and will be unveiled at FOSE 2009. I am looking forward to working with the BAH Cloud Computing Team on this exciting project.

More than a game, CCW applies simulation techniques to model “Traditional IT” and “Cloud Computing” environments and dynamically maps them against internal, community, and Cloud-based resources. The simulation represent real-life situations facing IT management daily, especially in an environment of rapid technological and mission change against a backdrop of resource variability. The CCW is designed for both mission “owners” and senior IT staff who are engaged in the strategic planning and use of information technologies to meeting organization mission and basic business requirements. The game puts the “players” in real-life situations that you can win … and you can loose.



By actively applying modeling and simulation to IT decision making The Cloud Computing Wargame helps players and organizations understand:

    * The inter-relationships between cloud computing technology and mission requirements
    * How long-term cloud computing strategy can develop, evolve, and change.
    * The interaction between different activities that occur within an IT organization in order to implement and support IT capabilities in different capabilities matrices.
    * How different strategies maximize mission impact and value
    * How different roles work with business and IT partners throughout the organization and value chain.


You comments and suggestions are welcome. I look forward to seeing you at FOSE for this exciting unveiling.
__________________________________________________________________
Look at this NWO shill (important to read to see the type of brainwashing rampant even amongst their own employees, but then again there's a good chance they all know what they're really doing and the absolutely want world government and a NWO.  The level of bullshit disinfo and lies in the below article are completely off the charts, I'm not even going to bother highlighting everything, you can figure it out for yourself):

http://www.ctovision.com/cyber-war/
The Future of Cyber Security and Cyber Conflict

By ctovision on January 23, 2009 6:07 AM

As I write this there is evidence that the Russian's are once again attacking another country through massive denial of service attacks.  For a recap with analysis you will not see elsewhere see The Kyrgyzstan Cyber Attack That No One Is Talking About .  This is not the first time that a major nation state has been accused of launching attacks like this.  Russia has been implicated as responsible for two other large scale attacks (Estonia and Georgia).   In other investigations China has been implicated of sponsoring/supporting attacks designed to extract information.  These are very serious high end attacks that are hard to mitigate, but organized crime is also becoming increasingly capable, investing large amounts in R&D to allow their continued ability to sap resources through cyber theft.   In a recent example a payment processing company called Heartland Security Systems admitted its security system had been breached and millions of credit and debit card numbers were extracted.

I've previously written about the government's response and many of us have been strongly supportive of the efforts and activities of Melissa Hathaway and the team of coordinators she assembled in government.   Her approach has been viewed as very positive by all credible observers and it is good to know she will be continuing to work to make our nation safe in this area.

It was also good to see the approach of the Obama team posted on the Whitehouse.gov site.  In a homeland security policy statement six key goals were articulated.  They are copied below:
   
      Protect Our Information Networks

      Barack Obama and Joe Biden -- working with private industry, the research community and our citizens -- will lead an effort to build a trustworthy and accountable cyber infrastructure that is resilient, protects America's competitive advantage, and advances our national and homeland security. They will:
   
    * Strengthen Federal Leadership on Cyber Security: Declare the cyber infrastructure a strategic asset and establish the position of national cyber advisor who will report directly to the president and will be responsible for coordinating federal agency efforts and development of national cyber policy.
   
    * Initiate a Safe Computing R&D Effort and Harden our Nation's Cyber Infrastructure: Support an initiative to develop next-generation secure computers and networking for national security applications. Work with industry and academia to develop and deploy a new generation of secure hardware and software for our critical cyber infrastructure.
   
    * Protect the IT Infrastructure That Keeps America's Economy Safe: Work with the private sector to establish tough new standards for cyber security and physical resilience.   

    * Prevent Corporate Cyber-Espionage: Work with industry to develop the systems necessary to protect our nation's trade secrets and our research and development. Innovations in software, engineering, pharmaceuticals and other fields are being stolen online from U.S. businesses at an alarming rate.
   
    * Develop a Cyber Crime Strategy to Minimize the Opportunities for Criminal Profit: Shut down the mechanisms used to transmit criminal profits by shutting down untraceable Internet payment schemes. Initiate a grant and training program to provide federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to detect and prosecute cyber crime.
   
    * Mandate Standards for Securing Personal Data and Require Companies to Disclose Personal Information Data Breaches: Partner with industry and our citizens to secure personal data stored on government and private systems. Institute a common standard for securing such data across industries and protect the rights of individuals in the information age.

Another goal was in the Defense portion  of the Whitehouse.gov site which called for DoD to lead in operational defense.  It reads:

    * Protect the U.S in Cyberspace: The Obama-Biden Administration cooperate with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against emerging cyber-threats.

My assessment of these seven goals:  This is too important for us to kibitz on at all.  Now is the time for us to all form up on these goals and execute.  Collectively we have to move faster in all these areas if we are to lesson the impact of the thinking/changing/technologically advanced adversaries that face us.  I only add that we should keep bold visions in mind.  I really believe that security and functionality of IT are totally connected and should always be considered in the same breath.  And both can be dramatically improved, this is not a zero sum game where functionality is compromised by security.  I believe our goal should be, as I've stated before, that the security and functionality of the federal enterprise will be improved by two orders of magnitude over the next 24 months.  And I believe the cyber and CTO team of the new administration can deliver on that.

I also believe that DoD will continue to have a key leadership roll in cyber, since increasingly that domain is being used by military adversaries and our own military must be able to operate with knowledge that their IT systems are safe from adversary attack.   

More later.
__________________________________________________________________


http://www.ctovision.com/information-warfare/

I recently read some GREAT news.  One of the nation's greatest organizational/technological thinkers and entrepreneurs, Rod Beckstrom, has answered the call to service and will be joining the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).   

Rod Beckstrom is famous for many things.  Among CTO s and enterprise technologists he is viewed as a champion for the smart use of new collaborative technologies to transform organizations.  He is really far more than that, however.   He is one of a new generation of forward thinking leaders who understand that sometimes in order to lead you must serve, and sometimes in order to really lead you must adopt powerful new organizational frameworks that enable disruption of the current order. He is the co-author of the bestselling, frequently quoted, often discussed "The Starfish and the Spider", which gives some hints at the powerful thinking Rod will bring to DHS.

The following is a quote from the Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff:

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1206047924712.shtm

Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on the Appointment of the Director of the National Cyber Security Center

Release Date: March 20, 2008

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

I am pleased to announce my appointment of Rod Beckstrom as the first Director of the National Cyber Security Center (NCSC). Rod will serve the department by coordinating cyber security efforts and improving situational awareness and information sharing across the federal government.

The department is leading efforts to protect federal networks and enhance capabilities that defend and reduce cyber-associated risks. The NCSC will work with the interagency to implement cyber security strategies in a cohesive way, consistent with our privacy laws.

Rod has over 25 years of experience in designing and implementing new internet technologies. He brings to the department a specialized Internet expertise, and unique entrepreneurial and creative business thinking. Rod received both his BA and MBA from Stanford University, and was a Fulbright Scholar in Switzerland.

We look forward to working with Congress on the development of the NCSC. I congratulate Rod on his appointment and look forward to his contributions to the protection of federal networks and the security of our homeland.
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503261_pf.html

See above for embedded links, there's too much stuff I have to post to perfectly edit all this crap right now.

Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring
Intelligence Agencies to Track Intrusions

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 26, 2008; A03

President Bush signed a directive this month that expands the intelligence community's role in monitoring Internet traffic to protect against a rising number of attacks on federal agencies' computer systems.

The directive, whose content is classified, authorizes the intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency, to monitor the computer networks of all federal agencies -- including ones they have not previously monitored.

Until now, the government's efforts to protect itself from cyber-attacks -- which run the gamut from hackers to organized crime to foreign governments trying to steal sensitive data -- have been piecemeal. Under the new initiative, a task force headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will coordinate efforts to identify the source of cyber-attacks against government computer systems. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security will work to protect the systems and the Pentagon will devise strategies for counterattacks against the intruders.

There has been a string of attacks on networks at the State, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security departments in the past year and a half. U.S. officials and cyber-security experts have said Chinese Web sites were involved in several of the biggest attacks back to 2005, including some at the country's nuclear-energy labs and large defense contractors.

The NSA has particular expertise in monitoring a vast, complex array of communications systems -- traditionally overseas. The prospect of aiming that power at domestic networks is raising concerns, just as the NSA's role in the government's warrantless domestic-surveillance program has been controversial.

"Agencies designed to gather intelligence on foreign entities should not be in charge of monitoring our computer systems here at home," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Lawmakers with oversight of homeland security and intelligence matters say they have pressed the administration for months for details.

The classified joint directive, signed Jan. 8 and called the National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, has not been previously disclosed. Plans to expand the NSA's role in cyber-security were reported in the Baltimore Sun in September.

According to congressional aides and former White House officials with knowledge of the program, the directive outlines measures collectively referred to as the "cyber initiative," aimed at securing the government's computer systems against attacks by foreign adversaries and other intruders. It will cost billions of dollars, which the White House is expected to request in its fiscal 2009 budget.

"The president's directive represents a continuation of our efforts to secure government networks, protect against constant intrusion attempts, address vulnerabilities and anticipate future threats," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. He would not discuss the initiative's details.

The initiative foreshadows a policy debate over the proper role for government as the Internet becomes more dangerous.

Supporters of cyber-security measures say the initiative falls short because it doesn't include the private sector -- power plants, refineries, banks -- where analysts say 90 percent of the threat exists.

"If you don't include industry in the mix, you're keeping one of your eyes closed because the hacking techniques are likely the same across government and commercial organizations," said Alan Paller, research director at the SANS Institute, a Bethesda-based cyber-security group that assists companies that face attacks. "If you're looking for needles in the haystack, you need as much data as you can get because these are really tiny needles, and bad guys are trying to hide the needles."

Under the initiative, the NSA, CIA and the FBI's Cyber Division will investigate intrusions by monitoring Internet activity and, in some cases, capturing data for analysis, sources said.

The Pentagon can plan attacks on adversaries' networks if, for example, the NSA determines that a particular server in a foreign country needs to be taken down to disrupt an attack on an information system critical to the U.S. government. That could include responding to an attack against a private-sector network, such as the telecom industry's, sources said.

Also, as part of its attempt to defend government computer systems, the Department of Homeland Security will collect and monitor data on intrusions, deploy technologies for preventing attacks and encrypt data. It will also oversee the effort to reduce Internet portals across government to 50 from 2,000, to make it easier to detect attacks.

"The government has taken a solid step forward in trying to develop cyber-defenses," said Paul B. Kurtz, a security consultant and former special adviser to the president on critical infrastructure protection. Kurtz said the initiative's purpose is not to spy on Americans. "The thrust here is to protect networks."

One of the key questions is whether it is necessary to read communications to investigate an intrusion.

Ed Giorgio, a former NSA analyst who is now a security consultant for ODNI, said, "If you're looking inside a DoD system and you see data flows going to China, that ought to set off a red flag. You don't need to scan the content to determine that."

But often, traffic analysis is not enough, some experts said. "Knowing the content -- that a communication is sensitive -- allows proof positive that something bad is going out of that computer," said one cyber-security expert who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the initiative's sensitivity.

Allowing a spy agency to monitor domestic networks is worrisome, said James X. Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "We're concerned that the NSA is claiming such a large role over the security of unclassified systems," he said. "They are a spy agency as well as a communications security agency. They operate in total secrecy. That's not necessary and not the most effective way to protect unclassified systems."

A proposal last year by the White House Homeland Security Council to put the Department of Homeland Security in charge of the initiative was resisted by national security agencies on the grounds that the department, established in 2003, lacked the necessary expertise and authority. The tug-of-war lasted weeks and was resolved only recently, several sources said.

Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.
__________________________________________________________________
"OMG, I WORK FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL CLOUD COMPUTING GETS USHERED IN TO DESTROY FREE SPEECH AND STOPS PEOPLE LIKE ANTI_ILLUMINATI FROM EXPOSING BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON, MITRE, DHS, NRO FALSE FLAG TERROR EXECUTED WITH AI SOFTWARE MORE ADVANCED THAN THE OLD PTECH SOFTWARE WE USED TO CARRY OUT 9/11!"

http://kevinljackson.blogspot.com/2009/01/president-barack-obama-new-day-for.html

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

President Barack Obama.  A New Day for Cloud Computing !!

Yesterday, President Barack Obama's transition team released a new video touting the benefits of cloud computing and government transparency.

"Cloud computing, which allows consumers and institutions to access their files and projects anywhere via the Internet "is an important change for the federal government because it is dramatically cheaper than the old fashioned way of doing computing infrastructure," said team member Andrew McLaughlin, head of global public policy and government affairs for Google, a longtime supporter of cloud services.

As stated by Andrew McLaughlin, Technology Innovation and Governmental Reform, a shift to cloud computing represents one of the most important transformations that the Federal government will go through over the next 10 years. "The First Cybergenic President of America" is sure to make cloud computing, along with the Blackberry, a major tool for realizing his goal of remaking America. Paul McDougall of Information Week stated it rather bluntly today in his blog, "IT Could Make Or Break Obama Presidency"

Wonder if there will be any related executive orders today :-)

[INSERT:  WOW, what a SICK F*CKER, smiling at the destruction of the Internet, hey JACKASS, Executive Orders are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD!!!!!]

http://www.appscout.com/2009/01/obama_tech_teams_touts_cloud_c.php

On the eve of his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama's transition team released a new video that touts the benefits of cloud computing and government transparency.

The Obama team is "attempting to make government institutions more effective," Beth Noveck, a law professor and a member of Obama's Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform team, said on the video posted to change.gov.

Cloud computing, which allows consumers and institutions to access their files and projects anywhere via the Internet "is an important change for the federal government because it is dramatically cheaper than the old fashioned way of doing computing infrastructure," said team member Andrew McLaughlin, head of global public policy and government affairs for Google, a longtime supporter of cloud services.

"Working together as, let's say, a federal advisory committee, you can do that sort of thing up on the Web in a way which is much easier than it would be if you had to download an application and use the telephone and meet face to face to get your work done," McLaughlin said.

"Why is it that we can't innovate and find better ways of bringing services, lowering the cost of government operations, and driving transparency?" asked Vivek Kundra, who serves as the chief technology officer for Washington, D.C. "Those are the types of things you're going to see in this administration."

"One of the biggest problems in the federal government is that process has trumped outcome," Kundra said. "The biggest reason for that is that everyone is focused on compliance; nobody's thinking about innovation and how to drive change within the government."

[jesqueal]

You should write a book or do some lectures

[TheGoodFight1984]

damn right

been saving and printing all these threads out - awesome work A_I

[Dig]

Anti_Illuminati is te master of connecting the dots.

Awesome work as always!

[Anti_Illuminati]

CYBER-"TERROR", BROUGHT TO YOU BY:







Sit back and grab your favorite drink and enjoy the show as I show you classical New World Order conditioning of the masses for "Cyber attacks" that would in fact be carried out by the very individuals, corporations, governments, firms, etc. whom you are told to believe are protecting IT/Cyber/Network/Communications Infrastructure.  Starting pre - Black OP in NY carried out via Ptech, (the "golden thread" of the NWO's subsequent and future C4ISR/DoDAF black op foundation) used to carry out all other alleged "attacks" against the Internet, power grids, et.al.

Keep your mind sharp while reading this to historically cross-reference this wicked disinfo chronologically to other propaganda that you are aware of to develop a picture of the full-spectrum bullshit the NWO has tried, and is continually attempting to inundate your brain with.
_____________________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/specials/washington_2000/648429.stm
Tuesday, 22 February, 2000, 12:27 GMT
Cyber-terrorists wield weapons of mass disruption [INSERT: LMFAO]



By BBC News Online's Kevin Anderson in Washington DC

Terrorists are not just exploring weapons of mass destruction but also weapons of mass disruption, said the director of the Global Organised Crime Project on Friday.

Arnaud de Borchgrave, is at the US Centre for Strategic and International studies, [INSERT: LMFAO, THE NWO [CSIS (Kissinger, Brzezinski, Schlesinger, et.al.) warned us of threats, just like they are still doing today] and joined other experts at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting to assess the threat of cyber-terrorism.

Extremists used to work in relative isolation, but they can now use the internet to recruit like-minded people, he said.

And in the digital age, the old-fashioned wiretap may be ineffective against terrorists using strong encryption, he added.

In testimony before Congress this week, FBI Director Louis Freeh said: "Convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the World Trade Centre bombing, stored detailed plans to destroy United States' airliners on encrypted files on his laptop computer."

"Hacktivists" are using their computer cracking skills to deface websites and to make a point.

In his testimony, Mr Freeh also said: "A group calling itself the Internet Black Tigers conducted a successful "denial of service" attack on servers of Sri Lankan Government embassies. Italian sympathisers of the Mexican Zapatista rebels attacked web pages of Mexican financial institutions."

Access denied

The global nature of the internet and of these attacks highlights the challenges facing law enforcement, several of the experts said.

The recent attacks against Yahoo, eBay and several other high-profile websites could have been launched from anywhere in the world.

To trace the attack back to its source would require following the original command back hop through hop through the internet, according to Scott Charney, who before joining PricewaterhouseCoopers worked for the US Justice Department as part of the Computer Crime Initiative.

In the US, many Internet Service Providers are not keeping log data because there is no commercial incentive to do so, and in the European Union, several privacy directives call on providers to delete data on customers' activities after their monthly bill is paid, Mr Charney said.

This effectively erases the electronic trail, and the maze of regulations governing electronic search warrants around the world may delay law enforcement long enough for the electronic trail to go cold.

Daniel O'Connor with the National Infrastructure Protection Centre said, "Anyone who is sophisticated knows to bounce through a foreign country. It makes our jobs much more difficult."

Information warfare

But it is not simply terrorists or individual hackers but also foreign governments that might attempt to exploit computer network vulnerabilities to disrupt the technology-dependent United States.

"No country can match the US in terms of conventional weapons so cyber-terrorism becomes a credible alternative," Mr de Borchgrave said. "China has conducted war games designed to cripple and confuse a nation's computer power."

FBI Director Freeh said in his testimony that foreign countries perceive the US reliance on information technology to control critical government and private sector systems as the country's Achilles' heel.

"For example, two Chinese military officers recently published a book that called for the use of unconventional measures, including the propagation of computer viruses, to counterbalance the military power of the United States," Mr Freeh said.

Cyber-terrorism sceptic

But at least one panellist was sceptical about the threat of cyber-terrorism.

Kevin Poulsen knows about hacking. In 1982, he gained access to a dozen computers on Arpanet, the forerunner of today's internet, using a TRS-80 colour computer. He was 17 years old at the time.

Mr Poulsen now works for SecurityFocus.com, a security clearinghouse website, and he said information systems have become more secure, not less, over time.

And he dismissed the idea of an "Electronic Pearl Harbor," a term used often in information warfare circles to describe a potentially crippling and deadly cyber-attack.

"At Pearl Harbor, we lost the Pacific Fleet. We haven't even had an information Grenada," he said, referring to the US invasion of the Caribbean island in the 1980s.

He was careful to say that although he believes the threat posed by cyber-terrorism to be overblown that it does not mean that he is not concerned about security on the Internet.

But he added, "We don't need to invent an enemy to protect our networks."
_____________________________________________________________
Original link no longer works.

http://www.gyre.org/news/us-enemies-plotting-computer-blitz-clinton-aide

U.S. enemies plotting computer blitz: Clinton aide -- Reuters  -- Toronto Star  -- June 19, 2000

A top aide to President Bill Clinton said Monday unspecified hostile countries are studying U.S. computer networks for ways to spark mayhem if war breaks out. 'This is not theoretical. It's real,' said Richard Clarke, White House National Security Council staff co-ordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism.
_____________________________________________________________
Original link no longer works.

http://www.gyre.org/node/751/

Cyberterror: How to Counter an Unseen, Unpredictable Enemy? -- James Gordon Meek  -- APBNews.com  -- August 30, 2000

Who are America\'s cyberenemies? Don\'t ask the White House, it doesn\'t know -- but it insists they\'re out there. Watchdogs and experts in the computer security field say there is a real threat of hostile hackers penetrating sensitive government and private computer systems, and intrusions are detected constantly.
_____________________________________________________________
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/04/04/cyberterrorism/index1.html

The phantom cyber-threat [INSERT:  Phantom like "Phantom Flight 11", isn't that right "General" Eberhard (now Renuart), TRAITORS, and enemy commander(s) of NORAD-USNORTHCOM?

We should stop worrying about computer terrorism and learn who our real enemies are.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Caroline Benner

April 4, 2001 | Are you under 30? If so, jokes former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake in his book "Six Nightmares," chances are you have enough technical know-how to be a cyber-threat. And if you don't, says Lake, you can find everything you need, including cyber-attack tools and their instruction manuals, on the Internet. Armed with these tools, "millions of computer-savvy individuals could wreak havoc against the United States."

Lake isn't the only policy wonk warning us of our own vulnerability. On March 22, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke, who heads U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, issued a warning against computer attacks that could disrupt vital services in the United States. "It is a paradox of our times," said Rice, "that the very technology that makes our economy so dynamic and our military forces so dominating also makes us more vulnerable."

But vulnerable to what? If the alarmists are right, we have some terrifying scenarios ahead of us: large-scale attacks on critical infrastructure such as the food supply, emergency services, government agencies, power grids, communication systems, air traffic control and financial systems. Lake, whose chapter "e-Terror, e-Crime" is a veritable case study in cyber-attack alarmism, worries that cyber-attackers could crash planes; tamper with food or medicines to poison populations; or disrupt the economy by shutting down electrical and communication systems. "The genie is well outside the bottle," he claims, now that attackers have jammed 911 lines in Miami, overwhelmed the e-mail system at an Air Force base and infiltrated an unclassified Pentagon computer.

To an extent, their fears are legitimate. In the last 20 years, the number of people with computer skills has grown dramatically; there are thousands of computer viruses and hundreds of millions of potential targets. An Associated Press story on Rice's announcement cited $400 million in financial losses due to computer attacks over the last year. But just because there are plenty of cyber-savvy individuals out there doesn't mean that the attacks we're likely to face are going to be as damaging as Lake and others fear. And no one among them is offering a careful analysis of what the threat may be and where it will come from.

Part of the problem is that Lake and other alarmists don't distinguish between the resources it takes to cause an expensive nuisance -- like last year's denial-of-service attacks on Yahoo and eBay -- and the skills, time and access one needs to create a devastating attack, like crashing an airplane. In "Six Nightmares," Lake doesn't consider the checks that protect infrastructure from such threats. He also fails to ask an obvious question: If there are so many malicious hackers at work (19 million, by Lake's count), why have their attacks been, by and large, fairly innocuous?

"Certainly the large majority of attacks demonstrate no more than script-kiddie skill level," says Tim Shimeall, a senior member of the technical staff with the CERT Analysis Center, a center for Internet security at Carnegie Mellon University.

Script kiddies, or unskilled criminal programmers, perform simple exploits against underprotected systems using software tools and instructions created by skilled programmers. They take a tool and run it against multiple targets, hoping to hit one of them. These tools can crack passwords, steal files, install malicious software in a target or cause a denial-of-service attack, but are unlikely to cause large-scale damage. "Script kiddies are getting their clickers on more sophisticated tools, but they have little ability to do more than launch them," says John Arquilla, associate professor of information technology at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

Tools like these don't automate large-scale attacks on critical infrastructure as much as reproduce attacks that more proficient troublemakers have carried out in the past. And so what expert cyber-terrorists don't do routinely -- widespread attacks on the electrical grid, for instance -- just isn't an option for the vast majority of maliciously minded delinquents.

Major acts of cyber-terrorism are considerably more difficult than Lake and other alarmists suggest. Many tools -- which are usually designed to attack popular operating systems and common network protocols -- don't work against some critical infrastructures which run on proprietary operating systems and protocols. Moreover, a new attack tool can lose potency within weeks as patches for the newfound vulnerability are created and applied by alert system administrators. Challenges like these are enough to knock most script kiddies out of the running. Large-scale destruction requires the ability to create or modify tools, or to know how to use combinations of tools. The vast majority of script kiddies just don't have those skills.

"To carry out a large-scale attack against critical infrastructure requires significant expertise," says Edward Felten, director of the Secure Internet Programming Lab at Princeton University. A December 1999 study from the Naval Postgraduate School, "Cyberterror: Prospects and Implications," elaborates on the sort of expertise that might be necessary to execute attacks such as a "sustained total interruption of some component of the national critical infrastructure across a substantial customer base." Attackers would likely need sophisticated programming skills as well as mastery of operating systems, network and computer architectures, and security measures. They would need time to fully analyze a target system, which may require insider knowledge. They may also need organizational skills to employ multiple simultaneous attacks from different locations.

A major cyber-attack takes skill and motive and so far, says Frank Cilluffo, an editor of "Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism, Cyberwarfare," "we haven't yet seen the marriage of the intent with the capability."

Lake believes that malicious hackers, or "crackers," could wreak havoc against the United States just for the challenge of it, or to gain prestige among their peers. But is this sufficient motivation (especially given the criminal penalties) for real destruction? Arquilla confirms that there have been instances when hackers were in a position to do enormous damage and chose not to. He notes that most hackers are looking for an intellectual challenge and their interests are served better by a healthy information infrastructure than a broken one.

Terrorists -- those with ample political motivation to carry out such an attack -- are hindered by a lack of skills. According to the Naval Postgraduate School study, large-scale acts by foreign terrorist groups are likely a thing of the future since it takes a while to develop the skill set necessary for such attacks. Purchasing outside expertise is a possibility, but doing so introduces security risks for the terrorist group.

When and if they do strike, cyber-attackers will find many of their targets well guarded. Critical infrastructure systems are not sitting ducks, waiting to be taken out by a skilled and motivated attacker. Most systems have elaborate security measures in place, which may not be foolproof, but do provide a measure of security. For starters, critical infrastructure systems often have limited connections to external networks, making them less susceptible to attack than more open systems. Humans are also monitoring systems more closely than they used to, which means that strange behavior is more likely to be noticed quickly. Non-human checks tend to be effective too: Banks back up their transactions daily and store the information offline.

Lake and other alarmists consistently ignore these and other countermeasures against cyber-terrorism and overestimate the likelihood of large-scale cyber-attacks. Take, for example, one of Lake's nightmare scenarios, borrowed from James Adams' book "The Next World War":

"A cyber-terrorist will remotely access the processing control systems of a cereal manufacturer, change the levels of iron supplement, and sicken and kill the children of a nation enjoying their food."

According to a standard medical text, a lethal dose of iron for a child is between five and 10 grams. However, given that cereal generally has less than one-half milligram of iron per serving, one serving of cereal would need to contain 10,000 to 20,000 times the normal amount of iron to kill the child eating it, an amount that would render the cereal inedible. But it's hard to imagine the cereal would ever even reach the breakfast table: Manufacturers routinely test their products before shipping them to stores and, even prior to that, would notice an increase in iron consumption.

While Lake and other alarmists fret over highly unlikely scenarios such as that, they gloss over far more feasible and more likely attacks.

We've seen the damage that ILOVEYOU-type viruses can do; they're difficult to guard against and can have a significant economic impact. But those viruses could be manipulated into far more damaging strains. Information theft -- from credit card information to government secrets -- continues to be a real threat. Small-scale attacks on critical infrastructure, say, temporarily overwhelming a 911 system, could be especially dangerous when combined with a physical strike, like a subway bombing. Lake lumps threats like these in with major attacks on infrastructure, making little distinction between likely, smaller-scale threats and full-scale cyber-attacks.

Lake, Rice and Clarke have good reason to warn us of the danger of cyber-attacks: There are people with the skills to cause real problems and we don't have the experience to know how likely some of the devastating attacks might be. But before our current spate of minor-grade cyber-attacks graduates into serious threats, we should be more realistic about what the damage is likely to be and from where we can expect it to come. As Cilluffo points out, we have a window of time to prepare for the threat. Let's at least understand the threat, before it's too late.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/7/7469/1.html
On the Eve of Cold War II

John Horvath 26.04.2001
Computer networks are feeding a new Cold War mentality
It's an irony of history that while George Bush Sr. oversaw the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, his son, George W. Bush Jr., is on the threshold of overseeing the start of a second Cold War. And like its predecessor, we can expect it to last a long time. Moreover, the decreased sense of personal security and the restriction of individual liberty which accompanies such conflicts -- be they cold or hot -- will likewise be a part of our lives for a while.

Although the incident which brought the present state of affairs to the fore -- the collision of an American spy plane with a Chinese fighter jet -- is recent, the foundations of the Second Cold War has long been in place. Indeed, some would argue that the original Cold War did not end, and that present tensions are merely an extension of this conflict, one which is slowly coming out of hibernation.

In many ways, the past ten years have been a difficult one for the US. Policy makers have been busy trying to properly focusing on who the "enemy" really is in a post Cold War world. At the same time, it has been a challenge to convince the home population of the continued need to maintain large military expenditures. This is because America's industrial-military complex is based on a conceptual framework of perpetual war for perpetual peace. Hence, the demise of the Soviet Union did not spell an end to this framework, but merely a realignment of its strategic objectives.

Although present tensions between the US and China may eventually ease, what the spy plane incident nevertheless demonstrated is how the US is already on a war-footing, and that it's ready to quickly adapt to circumstances. The mass media in the US is a case in point. All media outlets in the US adopted the same line regarding the incident. In addition to this, they were crucial in setting the tone for the demonizing rhetoric against China.

For example, in an April 15th interview with two American servicemen on Meet the Press, host Tim Russert went at great lengths to introduce the notion that China "threatened" the crew, even though the two servicemen were reluctant to revert to such strong language. This notion was based on reports that the crew might go on trial in China after an investigation into the incident was completed.

The line of questioning which produced this "fact" merely followed the tone Russert wanted to set: that is, the Chinese authorities were aggressive. But it was not an easy job. Throughout the interview, Russert's plans were being foiled. When he tried to establish that the crew were "interrogated" while in custody, the two servicemen were clearly uneasy at the use of the term, and preferred to say that they were "questioned" (meanwhile, the crew were not "interrogated" or "questioned" by US authorities upon their release but "debriefed"). To make matters worse for Russert, the servicemen conceded to not being mistreated by their "captors".

Even more apparent than this, is how the military has evolved into a hallowed institution in the US since the end of the Vietnam War. No-one dares to question why "surveillance" is necessary; it's accepted as a simple matter of fact, that there is a need on the part of the US to spy against "enemies" even though China has not been formerly identified as one (at least not yet).

While there are many similarities between the Cold War of the days of Bush Sr. and that of his son, there is one main difference: in the past, concern over the Cold War heating up was on the use of nuclear weapons; nowadays, it's on the crashing of computer networks.

This fear is plain to see in the US. As in the heyday of McCarthyism when the paranoia was about a communist hiding under every bed, in digital age America it is "cyber-terrorism"; that is, there is a hacker lurking behind every IP address. The "threat" is considered real enough that President Bush Jr. has made a point of earmarking more money to combat it. Meanwhile, security experts continue to warn that computer networks in the US are full of holes that cannot be repaired.

The establishment of anti-US sites in wake of the spy plane incident further justifies this fear. In retaliation for the death of the pilot killed in the incident, some Chinese sites have started a "Hack the USA" movement pointing out vulnerable targets and offering information and help to get the job done. These include [extern] KillUSA and [extern] SOHU.

The fear over cyber-terrorism driving American insularity and paranoia is misplaced, however. The premise for "cyber-terrorism" is that an attack would harm "extremely sensitive" data that couldn't be quickly replaced and would have far-reaching effects. What is more, it would encompass multiple strikes and would be so devastating that it would cause infrastructure to shut down.

One would have to wonder why major infrastructure or "extremely sensitive" data would be on the public Internet in the first place, rather than private intranets. Not only this, if you really want to attack the US you would hit the country where it hurts most: in the pocket. Spoiling e-commerce is all you need: no need to worry about the military, utilities, transport, etc ...; just crash the stock market and you have brought America (and most of the western world) to its knees.

The hacktivism that goes on is obviously less inclined to go after huge infrastructure, or even extremely sensitive data for that matter. What is more, the most disruptive attacks to date, such as last year's DoS attacks and the "I Love You" worm were the work of script kiddies; in other words, they were the result of new forms of juvenile delinquency as opposed to the rise of cyber-terrorism.

Still, most analysts believe that hacking is a viable weapon. As a result, laws are being passed which infringe on fundamental rights and civil liberties for the sake of "national security" (the UK's cyber-terrorism bill being a case in point). Not only this, e-commerce has been elevated to such importance that to negatively affect it in any way is considered to be a terrorist act.

Thus, far from the promise of promoting social discourse and bringing the world together as a global village, computer networks are feeding a new Cold War mentality, one which threatens to fragment them into disjointed spheres of influence.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010925_1_n.shtml
Malicious Internet activity increases following 11 September attacks

25 September 2001

Following the devastating terrorist attacks in the United States on11September, there have been numerous reports, some well founded and some not, on cyber activism directed against those connected with the atrocities.

Firstly, media were quick to report the existence of a new Internet worm, called ‘W32.Nimda.A@mm’ which supposedly circulated as a result of the suicide attacks in Washington D.C. and New York. Arriving in the form of an attachment called ‘readme.exe’, it infects computers running the Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express e-mail clients. In some circumstances the attachment does not even need to be opened to become effective. Experts became worried as the worm began to propagate very quickly exactly one week after the attacks, hunting for vulnerable web servers. The National Infrastructure Protection Center, (NIPC), an agency run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), held a press conference on the worm and Attorney General John Ashcroft concluded that there was no apparent connection with the attacks.

However, there were at least three other hacking incidents that were related to the events of 11 September. Soon after New York and Washington were hit, the NIPC issued an advisory warning concerning a group calling themselves ‘The Dispatchers’, who claim to have corralled over 1,000 computers for a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack against unnamed internet sites. At least two Iranian websites were also defaced on the weekend following the devastation and it is thought that ‘The Dispatchers’ has also erroneously attacked a site that had offices in the World Trade Center. Websites belonging to the Special Risks Terrorism Team, a business unit of Chicago-based risk management company Aon Corporation, were defaced by the group. The company had a number of individuals working inside the World Trade Center when it was hit. It is not known why they were attacked, but their web addresses (www.terrorism.uk.com and www.terrorismteam.uk.com) seems to suggest that some form of automated tool was involved. The site of the official Taleban delegation to the United Nations (www.taleban.org) was also defaced, with a message informing viewers of the reward for information concerning the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, a full description of the man and his aliases and a message urging people to visit the FBI terrorism web-pages. The Iranian Interior Ministry site was defaced with a picture of Osama bin Laden in flames, and the home website of the Iranian Payame Noor University was also attacked by a group identifying itself as ‘Medanhacking’. The message left on the Iranian Ministry’s website said that the hackers intended to target ‘every place that poses a possible threat to our safety and security’. Their targets included those who support terrorism, ‘… including but not limited to Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan’. In Germany veteran computer hacker gang the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) issued a message about the need for restraint, appealing to hackers worldwide to hold back from attacking Islamic websites and communication systems. A spokesman for the gang said that he had seen an e-mail circulating hackers urging them to attack websites representing Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist organisations.

These events can be placed in a wider trend of calls for action by cyber activists in retaliation for real world events. Witness the large-scale Palestinian-Israeli cyber war and the numerous proclamations from the hacker underground concerning the need for online retaliation after the ‘spyplane incident’ in China. It is unlikely that these incidents, so soon after the recent terrorist attacks in the US, will be the only ones. The only question is the scale of any future activity.
_____________________________________________________________
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DD1E3DF937A35753C1A9679C8B63

Securing the Lines Of a Wired Nation

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: October 4, 2001

IN the hours of torment and confusion after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many people making phone calls to or from the affected cities encountered the grating ''All circuits are busy'' recording. E-mail messages, however, seemed to sail through the crisis to their destinations. The smooth traffic was hailed by many experts as testament to the underlying strength of the Internet.

But hold on just one nanosecond. Are we talking about the Internet, referred to by so many other experts as a famously vulnerable, fragile network that can be brought to its knees by college students in the Philippines or a teenager in Canada, with estimates of damage in the billions of dollars?

It is indeed the same Internet, ever a combination of flaky and robust. Fred Cohen, the computer security researcher who first applied the word ''virus'' to malicious software, said that the individual elements of the network were fragile but that the network over all was resilient. ''It's easy to tear a piece of paper,'' he said. ''Try tearing a phone book in half.'' Still, David J. Farber, a computer scientist and former chief technologist at the Federal Communications Commission, said that the Internet's success on Sept. 11 could largely be attributed to the fact that ''nobody attacked it.''

Experts in the emerging field of cyberterrorism say that with such an inviting target, terrorists are bound to take up the hackers' wares. What will happen when an attacker with real resources and a deep desire to do harm grabs the keyboard?

It may not take long to find out, and the vulnerability may go far beyond Web sites or e-mail.

According to a report last week by the Institute for Security Technology Studies, founded last year at Dartmouth, ''U.S. retaliatory strikes for the tragic Sept. 11 events may result in cyberattacks against the American electronic infrastructure.'' While such attacks may amount to no more than familiar nuisances -- like hackers' defacing Web pages or tying up sites by overwhelming them with traffic -- ''the potential exists for much more devastating cyberattacks,'' the report said.

Those who watch trends in computer crime and terrorism say that the two are coming together with potentially catastrophic results. Richard A. Clarke, who will head cyberterrorism efforts for the Bush administration's Homeland Security Council, said in a speech last December that the government had to make cybersecurity a priority or face a ''digital Pearl Harbor.''

In 1997, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection noted that telephone networks and the Internet were increasingly the bonds of the world's economy, for everything from financial operations to the supply of water and power.

Consequently, it said, ''a computer can cause switches or valves to open and close, move funds from one account to another, or convey a military order almost as quickly over thousands of miles as it can from next door, and just as easily from a terrorist hideout as from an office cubicle or military command center.''

For Tom Marsh, who was the commission's chairman, the worst-case scenarios are nightmarish: a determined coalition of hackers, he said, could disrupt 911 service, air traffic control, the power-switching centers that move electricity around the country, rail networks and more. ''It's a major undertaking,'' said Mr. Marsh, a retired Air Force general, ''but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.'' The complexity of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he said, showed that ''even terrorist organizations can conduct very well-organized and sophisticated attacks.''

''We said in our report we didn't foresee an electronic Pearl Harbor, and I still don't,'' he said. ''But I do believe that as cybercrime progresses, over time the terrorists are going to get more and more interested in it and see it as a very possible opportunity to cause major disruption.''

Those who have worked in cyberintelligence say that the attention to the subject is timely. ''Up until the 11th, people like me would talk in terms of the growing threat of transnational attack -- the prospect of new forms of terrorism -- and the basic reaction was, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that's theoretical,' '' said Jeffrey A. Hunker, dean of the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University and formerly the senior director for protection of critical infrastructure at the National Security Council.

Since the attacks, he said, it has become clear that ''there are clearly transnational organizations that are incredibly capable of executing sophisticated operations and are enormously creative and innovative.'' That, in turn, ''makes much more real the possibility of new techniques or new types of terrorist attacks,'' including cyberterror, he said. ''We're sitting on a cyber time bomb,'' he said.

Some experts have warned, for example, that systems accessible to the Internet like power grids could be brought down by a determined hacker, though as Mr. Farber put it, ''it's a lot easier to throw a hand grenade down the highway south of San Jose and take out a major power station'' than to do so by modem. And most would put cyberattacks in a different category from the weapons of mass destruction associated with visions of catastrophic terrorism; these are not nuclear arms, nerve gas or germs. Instead, many experts now call them weapons of mass disruption.

''People aren't going to be killing us with computers,'' Mr. Hunker said, ''but our life may be hell because of computer attacks.''

The likeliest use of the technology, he said, would be to complicate matters further after a real-world attack, a tactic he describes with the military phrase ''force multiplier.'' That could involve planting false information on the Web to create a panic or taking down crucial computers in the financial or communications sectors.

The ripple effects of the World Trade Center attacks on everything from the travel industry to supply chains in manufacturing show the potential for havoc. ''Besides the fact of the horrendous loss of life, it was really an attack on the critical infrastructures,'' said Mary J. Culnan, a professor of management and information technology at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass., and a member of the presidential commission that issued the 1997 report.

The Clinton administration started the first major national effort to upgrade computer security in government and business against cybercrime and terrorist attack. President Bill Clinton issued an order in May 1998 creating the National Infrastructure Protection Center, a collaborative effort of law enforcement, military and intelligence organizations to shore up defenses against computer crime. The center also developed an information-sharing network with major industrial sectors.

Such activities will presumably be brought under the umbrella of the new Homeland Defense Council that President Bush has appointed Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania to run. Mr. Clarke will oversee cyberdefense initiatives for the council as head of its Office of Cyber Security.

Michael Vatis, the head of the Dartmouth cybersecurity group and a former head of the National Infrastructure Protection Center, said the stereotype of computer intruders as thrill-seeking teenage loners was misleading. Talented intruders who are motivated -- and perhaps banding together with criminal or ideological motives -- can go far, he said, citing little-publicized attacks on business and Pentagon computer networks by hackers who may be linked to organized crime in Russia. The attacks, beginning in 1998, are the focus of a federal investigation. ''The type of access they were able to gain,'' he said, and ''the amount of information and the types of information they were getting means they could do lots of stuff to those systems,'' both purloining data and disrupting operations.

Even more dangerous than outsiders, potentially, are insiders with specialized knowledge, according to the 1997 report of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. That report estimated that by this year 19 million people worldwide would have the skills to engage in malicious hacking and 1.3 million people would have advanced knowledge of the systems that control the nation's telecommunications infrastructure.

Whatever the nature of the attack, the tools are easy to acquire and the knowledge to use them even more so. A reasonably competent programmer who is willing to delve into the arcana of computer operating systems and networks can cobble together viruses or other destructive computer code from software posted online. Similarly, tools for examining computer systems for security holes and the programs that can be used to take advantage of them to gain unauthorized entry are also easy to find online, and computer vandals are happy to share their knowledge in Internet forums.

So what is to be done? Most of the measures that experts recommend, like keeping up with the latest antivirus software, using strong passwords to protect computers and networks and installing intrusion-detection software, are painfully obvious but still ignored by many businesses, government agencies and consumers. The Dartmouth report also recommends increasing protection at Web sites and keeping backups of their important data, with special attention to the potential for Web page defacement.

That report also recommends vigilance, and appropriate software, to prevent or detect the surreptitious commandeering of computer systems for use in denial-of-service attacks. (A guide to the best security practices can be found at www.cert.org /security-improvement.)

Informal networks for intrusion detection are beginning to form among those who hope to find security in numbers. One such network, AirCert, has been developed by the CERT Coordination Center at Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute. The fledgling AirCert project places Internet-based security sensors on participating sites; those sensors automatically send data on intrusion attempts to a central CERT knowledge base that is able to analyze the information and share it quickly.

The idea has been suggested before. A network for intrusion detection in government computers, called Fidnet, was proposed late in the Clinton administration but never created because of assertions that the system might be used as a large-scale monitoring network for citizens' online communications. Government officials insist that was never the intention, but Mr. Vatis said that they did not make their case well.

Making that case may now be easier, but Professor Culnan, at Bentley College, said that mounting an effective deterrent to cyberterror was no small task. ''It's a gigantic problem making this work,'' she said. ''But at least we've started thinking about it.''
_____________________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1593018.stm
Thursday, 11 October, 2001, 09:10 GMT 10:10 UK
Doomsday fears of terror cyber-attacks


Fears that services like fire brigade could be at risk
By BBC News Online's Alfred Hermida

Computer experts have painted a chilling picture of the potential threat from a combined terror and cyber-attack on the United States.

They told Congress that terrorists could target computer networks critical to power supplies, telecommunications and financial systems and wreak havoc on the country.

"What if the terrorists were also able to impact our communications system, thus hampering the rescue and recovery efforts?" asked Ms Benzel, vice president of computer security firm Network Associates.

"What if the attackers were able to compromise systems monitoring the water supply for Manhattan? What if power to parts of the northeast corridor could have been brought down through a cyber-attack on key systems?

"We must prepare now to prevent this from happening," she urged.

Her fears were echoed by committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert. He warned that research and development on computer security had not kept pace with the threat.

"To put it simply, we need more people to be doing more creative thinking about computer security. That's what our adversaries are doing," he said.

Vulnerable networks

An official report released the day after the September attacks highlighted the vulnerability of America's computer networks.

"Recent reports and events indicate that these efforts are not keeping pace with the growing threats and that critical operations and assets continue to be highly vulnerable to computer-based attacks," said the US Government report.

"Despite the importance of maintaining the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of important federal computerised operations, federal computer systems are riddled with weaknesses that continue to put critical operations and assets at risk," it said.

Experts have been warning for some time about what has been described as an Electronic Pearl Harbour - a computer-based attack that would cause massive amounts of destruction and loss of life.

In a worst-case scenario, such an attack would target power distribution, financial services, emergency call services and air traffic control systems.

Shortly after the shocking events of 11 September, an influential US thinktank warned that cyber-attacks could become part of any future conflict.

'Nuisance attacks'

"The vast majority of previous politically related cyber-attacks have been nuisance attacks, and it is extremely likely that such attacks will follow any US-led military action," said the report by the US-based Institute for Security Technology Studies.

"The potential exists for much more devastating cyber-attacks following any US-led retaliation to the 11 September terrorist attacks on America. Such an attack could significantly debilitate US and allied information networks".

The Bush administration has acted to address the issue with the appointment of Richard Clarke as special White House advisor for cyberspace security.

Mr Clarke has a long record in counter-terrorism and cyber-security, most recently serving as national co-ordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism on the National Security Council.

But some are sceptical about the idea of dramatic assault on computer networks in the US. Computer security expert Richard Forno said cyber-attacks were more of a nuisance than viable terrorist tactics, warning against any knee-jerk measures.

Fears of a cyber-assault on the US have been heightened following the 11 September attacks.

President Bush has already moved to head off any danger by appointing a computer security veteran as special White House advisor for cyberspace security.

'Beyond frightening'

Speaking before the House Science Committee, computer security expert Terry Benzel said the potential for an attack on America's computer networks was "beyond frightening".
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3409-2003Jan30
Feds Building Internet Monitoring Center

By Brian Krebs
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003;

The Bush administration is quietly assembling an Internet-wide monitoring center to detect and respond to attacks on vital information systems and key e-commerce sites.

The center, which has been in development for the past 15 months, is a key piece of the White House's national cybersecurity strategy and represents a major leap in the federal government's effort to achieve real-time tracking of the Internet's health.

 The "Global Early Warning Information System," (GEWIS, pronounced "gee-whiz") is being built by the National Communications System (NCS), a Defense agency established in 1962 to ensure that the government has access to adequate communications systems during national emergencies. It is unrelated to the Total Information Awareness program, a planned Defense Department program that would actively mine databases worldwide to uncover terrorist and other threats.

The NCS started building the GEWIS system shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when it began asking major Internet and telecommunications providers to sell "real-time" data about the status of their networks, said NCS Deputy Manager Brent Greene.

The NCS has spent an undisclosed sum of money to buy data from the members of the National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications, an NCS information sharing group established during the Clinton administration that includes some the largest telecom and Internet service providers in the world, including WorldCom, Verizon, Sprint, SBC Communications, Qwest and BellSouth.

Greene said the agency now receives data from several key telecom and Internet service providers, and in the next two months hopes to launch the first stage of its pilot project, which will combine the information into a graphical view of the health of the Internet.

The White House believes the monitoring center is necessary because no single entity in the government or private sector has more than a limited view of the global communications network.

"Nowhere do you see everything that is happening on the Internet," said White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke at a recent public appearance in Washington. "Nowhere do you see the big board."

With Clarke's help, the NCS secured $5 million in 2002 for the GEWIS program.

The NCS is co-managed by the White House and the head of the Defense Information Systems Agency, which is responsible for guarding the communications infrastructures of the military and intelligence communities. On March 1, the NCS will be folded into the Department of Homeland Security, along with four other federal cybersecurity divisions.

Privacy Problems Resolved?

GEWIS has proven a tough sell for some ISPs, in part because of the way the government initially pitched its request for data. NCS first asked about the possibility of receiving live feeds from ISPs, with few restrictions on the amount or scope of data requested, according to several providers.

"We were led to believe that some contractors [working on GEWIS] may have gotten a little over-enthusiastic about what kinds of information they could get," said Stewart Baker, a former deputy director for the National Security Agency, and currently an attorney representing several ISPs. "Exactly what will be pulled together by GEWIS and what will be the role of companies asked to participate is all still up in the air."

The program has left other ISPs wondering how GEWIS differs from the "network operations center" outlined in the Bush administration's draft cybersecurity plan. The center, which would be run by the private sector, would link the network security operations of numerous telecommunications providers for the purpose of sharing information on specific cyber threats.

Clarke's deputy, Howard Schmidt, said GEWIS is a far less ambitious program than the network operations center. Instead, GEWIS would give the government the ability to spot cyberattacks before they become a worldwide problem and would use aggregate data to model the effects of a virus or cyberattacks on key systems, Schmidt said.

"GEWIS is merely a tool that would be looking at the Internet from the government's perspective," he said. "The effort mentioned in the cyber plan asks what are the bigger things that government may not need to know about but that the private sector should do a better job coordinating on?"

The NCS's Greene said the government is taking steps to ensure that the center does not collect personal information from ISPs. He said ISPs can use "software tools" to limit the amount of information transmitted to NCS while still allowing the agency to spot major problems with the Internet, such as denial-of-service attacks and computer viruses capable of crippling government and commercial activity online.

"We certainly don't want to get into the level of detail where we create the perception of government getting into stuff that a lot of people don't want the government to see," Greene said. "We think this is very doable, but it can only be done in a partnership with industry, and we have to be careful not to do anything to undermine that."

The NCS already receives real-time data from Verisign Corp., which oversees two of the Internet's 12 root servers that tell computers around the world how to reach key Internet domains. The company gave the government a software tool that allows the NCS to monitor the health of all 12 root servers for free.

The NCS also contracted to receive information from Keynote, a company that monitors the performance of major e-commerce Web sites. In addition, Lumeta Corp., a Somerset N.J.-based Bell Labs spinoff, sold the NCS large amounts of data pinpointing thousands of the most crucial routers on the Internet. Lumeta chief scientist Bill Cheswick helped create the first map of the Internet, which has been used to study Internet routing problems and distributed denial-of-service attacks.

One of the first companies successfully approached by the NCS was Boston-based Akamai Technologies, a company that makes software to monitor Web traffic for suspicious events. The company also sells a product that identifies the geographic location and network origin of visitors accessing customers' Web sites. Akamai CEO George Conrades is a board member of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the company that manages the Internet's worldwide addressing system.

To build on that level of industry cooperation, the NCS has recast its approach and plans to hold a workshop in March to address industry concerns about GEWIS. Greene said that GEWIS's goal is "not to become a secretive place that holds terabytes of data that we're off doing analysis on."

The administration hopes that GEWIS will benefit from the level of trust that the NCS has gained in developing a related project known as the Cyber Warning Information Network (CWIN).

Under construction since early 2001, CWIN will be a separate data network that government and leaders in the telecom and Internet industries can use as a hotline to share information or stay in touch in the event of crisis or attack that takes out the World Wide Web.

Developed under contract by AT&T Corp., CWIN terminals have recently been installed at several major telecom and Internet service providers. NCS hopes to build the network out to small and regional service providers in the coming months.

Many service providers that expressed uneasiness over GEWIS view CWIN as an essential step toward a more cooperative approach between the government and the private sector.

"This boils down to a trust question: How much does the government trust industry to manage these systems effectively, and to what degree does industry trust the government to handle all this data?" said Cristin Flynn, spokeswoman for WorldCom.

"I think there's an inclination on the part of ISPs to participate in that in good faith without setting off the alarm bells that some of the more ambitious proposals set off," Flynn said. "We think CWIN is a good way to build that trust, sort of like dating before we get married."

Mark Rasch, former head of the Justice Department's Computer Crime division, questioned the need for GEWIS. With most Internet attacks, he said, by the time you notice a huge spike in traffic, it's already too late to head off disruptions.

"Slammer made that fact very clear," Rasch said of the Internet worm that infected nearly 200,000 computers within a few short hours early Saturday morning.

[Anti_Illuminati]

I missed a few somehow, have to back up chronologically for a bit (back to 2001, and 02.  Note:  I'm not going to post every article in full-the really long ones I will just leave a link in the interest of not bogging down the entire thread and boring the hell out of most people, but this has to be done somewhat to discredit these bastards):

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/10/21/black.ice.idg/index.html
'Power backup only lasts so long'
Utah's 'Black Ice': Cyber-attack scenario

By Dan Verton October 21, 2001

(IDG) -- A little-known exercise held last year to help federal, state and local officials in Utah prepare for a possible terrorist attack during the 2002 Winter Olympics may hold some of the most important lessons for infrastructure protection in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to a key official involved in the exercise.

Next month marks the one-year anniversary of the first regional such exercise known as "Black Ice" -- no connection to the commercially available computer-security software of the same name. Sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command, Black Ice demonstrated how the effects of a major terrorist attack or natural disaster could be made significantly worse by a simultaneous cyber-attack.

"The terrorists in the September 11 event had the patience to plan (and) the foresight and the understanding of the infrastructure that could be used to simultaneously or sequentially disrupt the infrastructure electronically and that could cause a major regional failure in this country," says Paula Scalingi, director of the DOE's Critical Infrastructure Protection Office and a central figure in planning the exercise. "There's no question that that's doable."

The Energy Department is preparing a report detailing the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York on various critical infrastructure sectors. Despite a few minor differences between the Black Ice scenario and the real-world scenario that unfolded on September 11, the exercise proved to officials that future terrorist attacks could be far worse if they include a major cyberdisruption.

The Black Ice scenario takes place on February 14, during the second week of the Olympics. A major ice storm topples power lines across seven counties and disrupts microwave communications in the Salt Lake City area. It also damages the high-voltage bulk transmission lines in several states, including transmission lines north and south of Salt Lake City.

The damage to the transmission system isn't extensive, but the ability to import electricity to the seven-county area is hindered significantly. The lack of power generation forces authorities to conduct rolling blackouts.

That's when the Supervisory Control Data Acquisition systems, which control the power grid, are further damaged by a cyber-attack. The source of the disruption is unknown; it could be a hacker, a terrorist, an insider or the result of storm damage. Regardless, the failure begins to ripple throughout the rest of the regional infrastructure.

"Communications were one of the first things to go," says Scalingi. "What was discovered is that if you have a prolonged power outage that goes on for several hours, your infrastructure starts to degrade. Power backup only lasts so long."

And it's not just telecommunications. Water systems rely on electric power, as does the natural gas industry and the natural gas-powered electric utilities in the region. Emergency responders struggle through the chaos that results from Internet outages, cell phone overload and telephone failures.

"You get the idea," says Scalingi.

The ice storm could easily have been replaced with scenarios of multiple bombs, hijackings or other physical catastrophes, she says. The important lesson is that Black Ice showed how interdependent are the various infrastructure systems -- including telecommunications, utilities and banking -- and how major might be the combined effects of cyber- and physical attacks, she says.

"The infrastructure system providers didn't understand the interdependencies among their systems," Scalingi says. "If you talk to state and local government and local utilities, they'll tell you they have great response plans. The problem is, they write them in isolation."

One recommendation was to develop a template for private-sector owners of critical infrastructure systems to use to identify the various levels of interdependency among their systems. Utah emergency planners also proposed developing a secure database to store information provided by the various infrastructure owners. However, concerns about the security of proprietary industry data put the project on hold, says Scalingi. A report on the lessons learned and recommendations on how to prepare for such disaster was released in May.

The database would have included geographic information system technology that would have enabled officials to view a graphic representation of the status of various infrastructure systems and how they connect, she says. Getting protection from Freedom of Information Act requests remains a key concern to most infrastructure companies and a main sticking point in information sharing, says Scalingi.

"It would have been real useful to have that database," she says. "You have to be able to share information with the other infrastructures. That's exactly where we need to go in the post-September 11 world."
__________________________________________________________________
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_new_crusade/message/3

RPT-Special Report-U.S. prepares for cyberwar-the war next time
11/12/01 01:13 PM
Source: Reuters

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Even as it fights in Afghanistan with bombs and guns and allies on horseback, the U.S. military is gearing up to use computers and code as potentially decisive weapons in the next phases of its campaign.

The goal would be to disable air defense systems, scramble enemy logistics and perhaps infect software through tactics being honed by a joint task force set up in 1999 under the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based U.S. Space Command.

The U.S. military has been working on tools that could wreak electronic havoc on countries accused of harboring terrorists as well as on ways of defending global networks against cyberattack.

"Transformation cannot wait," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week, using military jargon for souping up U.S. forces to meet 21st-century threats and to cash in on high-tech covert capabilities.

"We must act now to prepare for the next war, even as we wage the current war against terrorism," he wrote in a Nov. 1 Washington Post guest column.

After the Sept. 11 blitz that turned civilian airliners into missiles, killing some 4,800 people, the United States must plan for new and different foes who will rely on "surprise, deception and asymmetric weapons," or those meant to overcome the lopsided U.S. edge in conventional arms, Rumsfeld said.

"To deal with those future surprises, we must move rapidly now to improve our ability to protect U.S. information systems and ensure persistent surveillance, tracking and rapid engagement of an adversary's forces and capabilities," he said. CYBERARMS JOIN U.S. ARSENAL

The Defense Department has been readying to make cyber blitzes on enemy computer networks a standard tool of war, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this year as he left the Space Command.

Army Gen. Henry Shelton, Myers's predecessor as the top U.S. military officer, confirmed that the United States had jabbed electronically into Serbian computer networks throughout the 78-day NATO bombing campaign over Kosovo in 1999.

"We only used our capability to a very limited degree," Shelton said on Oct. 7, 1999.

At the same time, unspecified hostile countries have probed U.S. computer networks for ways to spark mayhem in wartime, Richard Clarke, the White House National Security Council staff coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism, said in June.

"This is not theoretical. It's real," Clarke said at the time. He was tapped by President George Bush on Oct. 16 to head a new senior advisory board on critical infrastructure protection -- in other words, the country's vital communications, transportation, food and health care systems.

CIA and Pentagon war games already feature foes using bits and bytes, not bombs or ballistic missiles, to attack U.S. financial institutions, communications hubs and spy satellites. SAT OUT Y2K

If Afghanistan were home to anything but one of the world's least computer-reliant societies, U.S. forces might have kicked off the campaign they began Oct. 7 with keyboard-launched strikes to disrupt the Taliban militia's command and control.

But a cyberblitz would have had scant impact on Afghanistan, one of only a handful of nations that never even bothered to touch base with a United Nations network that prepped governments for feared Year 2000 computer disruptions.

"They're just not connected," said information security strategist Bruce McConnell, who tried unsuccessfully to include the Taliban in the International Y2K Cooperation Center he headed under U.N. aegis.

Since the start of the U.S.-led campaign against Afghan protectors of terror suspect Osama bin Laden, "We've seen absolutely no indication of terrorists attacking via cyberspace," Space Command spokesman Army Maj. Barry Venable said.

But guerrilla forces are bound to turn to cyber weapons to wage their battles in an increasingly networked future, just as political activists have used denial-of-service attacks and Web page defacements to amplify their messages.

"As we harden our bridges, airports and other infrastructure, terrorists are going to seek the path of least resistance," said Steven Roberts, a computer security expert at Georgetown University. "That means they're likely to embrace information warfare tools such as viruses, Trojan Horses and password crackers." LEGAL ISSUES

From the standpoint of international law, there are two big questions to tackle before unleashing any kind of military response, whether it is clubs and spears or bits and bytes.

The first is whether a strike -- including one in cyberspace -- amounts to a "use of force" or an "armed attack" under international law, said Thomas Wingfield of Falls Church, Virginia-based Aegis Research Corp., a national security consultancy that has worked on the issue for U.S. government clients.

If so, four distinct tests would have to be met before the use of cyber weapons or other arms would be considered lawful self-defense.

The first is discrimination -- targeting combatants and not civilians. The second is necessity -- using no more force than required to accomplish a mission nor using inhumane means such as chemical or biological weapons.

The third is proportionality, or balancing the military advantage against harm to civilians, said Wingfield, a naval intelligence officer turned national security lawyer.

Finally comes the age-old principle of chivalry. It permits "ruses of war" to trick a foe but not "perfidy" -- defined as treacherous deceit about the legal status of the combatants.

"Tactical deception: OK. Legal deception: war crime," he said. "And all of these things extend into cyberspace."

Because these are the newest weapons in the U.S. arsenal, many of the questions surrounding their use are being confronted for the first time.

"They will have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, much as new legal doctrines were developed for aircraft at the beginning of the last century," Wingfield said.

Copyright 2001, Reuters News Service
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/Experts%20Say%20Key%20Internet%20Servers%20Vulnerable%20to%20Attack.htm
November 13, 2001
Experts Say Key Internet Servers Vulnerable to Attack

By REUTERS

MARINA DEL REY, Calif. (Reuters) - It would not take much for a malicious hacker to shut down the Internet, researchers at a meeting of the body that oversees Web address allocation warned on Tuesday.

An attack designed to flood the Web's master directory servers with traffic ``is capable of bringing down the Internet,'' Paul Vixie, a speaker at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) annual meeting, told Reuters.

After the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, non-profit corporation ICANN pushed other agenda items aside to concentrate the discussion on ways to keep the Internet safe.

Adding to the impetus for the change in focus were the Code Red and Nimda Internet worms, which cast more attention on network security issues.

Researchers said they were worried malicious hackers could attack the 13 ``root'' servers that direct computers to Web addresses, or domain names, or the 10 top-level domain servers, all of which serve as a kind of directory for the Internet.

To mount a so-called denial-of-service attack a malicious hacker would break into numerous PCs or Web servers and instruct them to send so much traffic to a target server that it would overload it, preventing people from accessing the Web. Such attacks are attempted all the time but usually to single Web sites and not on a scale that seriously interferes with overall Internet traffic, experts said.

Another trouble spot is security at registrars, the companies which sell domain names, or Web addresses, experts said.

``Registrars are the weakest link,'' Steven Bellovin, an AT&T fellow, said during his presentation. ``If the registrar is hacked and the database tampered with,'' it would be difficult for a domain name owner to prove ownership of a domain.

Researchers would also like to prevent attacks that redirect Web traffic to a dummy site and e-mail to someone other than the intended recipient, said Paul Mockapetris, the inventor of the Domain Name System protocol and chairman of Nominum, which handles directory services for registrars.

INTERNET IS FRAGILE

``The Internet is very fragile,'' said Vixie, who was one of the developers of the Berkeley Internet Name Domainsoftware that translates Web server names into numerical Internet Protocol addresses. ``It would be very easy for an angry teenager with a $300 computer to create almost unlimited pain for anyone on the Internet and not get caught. We've got to have attention focused on this.''

At the sessions engineers said they have taken steps to secure the computers that run the Internet. They have contingency plans for outages at the root servers -- the 13 master domain name computers around the world -- and are keeping them safe from unauthorized physical access, said Lars-Johan Liman, a senior systems specialist at Autonomica AB in Stockholm.

The operators of the root server in Japan also are stepping up security according to Kenji Kosaka, a senior vice minister at the posts and telecommunications ministry.

``I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that ICANN decided to hold a meeting focused on the security of the Internet only after the tragic events of September 11,'' Kosaka said during his keynote speech.

There was also scrutiny of security at VeriSign Inc (news/quote), the sole overseer of the .com, .net and .org master databases and provider of authentication technology to the root servers and most other registries of top-level domains.

``I am deeply troubled by the complacency of the ICANN leadership on the subject of security,'' Paul-Jean Jouve, president of Los Angeles-based network security company Brinx Corp, wrote in a letter to ICANN directors. ``It took worldwide fears to stimulate the dialogue on this issue.''

REFOCUSED AGENDA

While some criticized ICANN for taking so long to make security a priority, others said the subject should be left to engineers and not bureaucrats.

Switching the focus to security ``is opportunistic,'' Rodney Joffe, chairman and chief technical officer at Ultra DNS, which provides Internet directory services to companies, told Reuters.

``It's relevant in general, but I don't think ICANN needs to focus on it,'' Joffe said. ``Security is, after all, a technical issue, not an administrative one.''

ICANN Chairman Vint Cerf dismissed the concerns, saying board members need to hear about the technical issues from engineers to know what recommendations to make.

``For policymakers this is a valuable opportunity to have access to this kind of primary source input,'' Cerf said.

In addition to engineers, other attendees and even Cerf said they were concerned about ICANN going beyond its scope, with some asking the group to formally restate its mission and even restructure.   
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.gyre.org/news/source/National%20Infrastructure%20Protection

Original link no longer works.

Cyber Protests Related to the War on Terrorism: The Current Threat -- Staff  -- National Infrastructure Protection  -- November 22, 2001

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 the speculation of the potential for cyber attacks has varied, from low-level nuisances to an all out "cyber war." What has been seen thus far is on the low side of the threat spectrum. Both pro-U.S. protesters and anti-U.S. protesters have been active.

Related article from 03'  http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/HL812.cfm  Preparing Responders to Respond: The Challenges to Emergency
__________________________________________________________________
Purdue University Prof. Eugene Spafford warns that policymakers are paying insufficient attention to the threat of cyberterrorism.

December 22, 2001

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200201/msg00014.html
__________________________________________________________________
Information-Age "De-Terror-ence"

January 1, 2002

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/de-terror/de-terror.htm

by Mr. Timothy L. Thomas, Foreign Military Studies Office

__________________________________________________________________
Worries of Cyberattacks on U.S. Are Aired

April 25, 2002

U.S. officials warned yesterday that the Chinese military may be searching for ways to attack defense and civilian computer networks in the United States and Taiwan. But they said intelligence analysts have concluded that China so far lacks the ability to cause much disruption.

http://www.apdip.net/documents/access/security/wfs_cybersecurity082003.pdf
__________________________________________________________________
05/05/2002 - Updated 07:30 PM ET

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/05/06/cyberterror.htm

Cyberspace full of terror targets

By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Government and private computer networks are facing new threats of terrorist attacks, ranging from an attempt to bring havoc to a major city to nationwide disruptions of finances, transportation and utilities. But people with knowledge of national intelligence briefings say little has been done to protect against a cyberattack.

Some of the threats come from individuals who might have connections to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in Pakistan and elsewhere, those who have been briefed say.

The specific threats, in part, prompted a meeting April 18 of government intelligence and information-technology officials to discuss protecting the nation's computer networks.

"This threat is growing," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., says. "It's a big threat, because it is easy to do and can cause great harm."

Congress is trying to reduce the threat. Legislation has been proposed to create a national "cybersecurity defense team" to identify areas most vulnerable to attack and determine how to reduce the danger.

Other legislation would make it easier for companies to share information without being subject to antitrust or freedom-of-information laws. Such communication could alert the government to a terrorist attack, as opposed to more common cases of computer hackers targeting a company or agency. It could also help companies defend against attacks.

The vast array of potential targets and the lack of adequate safeguards have made addressing the threat daunting. Among the recent targets that terrorists have discussed, according to people with knowledge of intelligence briefings:

    * The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based in Atlanta. It is charged with developing the nation's response to potential attacks involving biological warfare.
    * The nation's financial network, which could shut down the flow of banking data. The attack would focus on the FedWire, the money-movement clearing system maintained by the Federal Reserve Board.
    * Computer systems that operate water-treatment plants, which could contaminate water supplies.
    * Computer networks that run electrical grids and dams.
    * As many targets as possible in a major city. Los Angeles and San Francisco have been mentioned by terrorists, intelligence officials say.
    * Facilities that control the flow of information over the Internet. Richard Clarke, the White House special adviser on cybersecurity, says such sites, of which there are 20 to 25, are "only secure in their obscurity."
    * The nation's communications network, including telephone and 911 call centers.
    * Air traffic control, rail and public transportation systems.

Officials are most concerned that a cyberattack could be coupled with a conventional terrorist attack, such as those on Sept. 11, and hinder rescue efforts.

"Cyberterrorism presents a real and growing threat to American security," says Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee's panel on terrorism and homeland security. "What I fear is the combination of a cyberattack coordinated with more traditional terrorism, undermining our ability to respond to an attack when lives are in danger."

The Bush administration is seeking about $4.5 billion in its 2003 budget request to protect federal computer systems. That's about 8% of its information technology budget.

Clarke warned lawmakers earlier this year that the threat of a cyberattack was greater than previously imagined. He says it could take three or four years to markedly improve the government's ability to prevent such attacks.

Long before Sept. 11, officials warned of the nation's vulnerability to cyberattack. The Pentagon and many large companies have experienced limited attacks. Hackers calling themselves the "Deceptive Duo" recently infiltrated Pentagon computers and left a message indicating that the attacks were made to show "how sad our cyber-security really is."

In 2001, cyberattacks caused $12 billion in damage and economic losses.

Such attacks were successful in penetrating security systems at an airport in Massachusetts and a dam in Arizona, causing shutdowns of both facilities but no loss of lives or long-term damage.

"The principal myth that you will hear is that nobody can actually change the operation of a physical system through computers," says Alan Paller, director of the System Administration, Networking and Security Institute, which teaches people how to protect computer systems. "There have been people who have already demonstrated how that can be done."
__________________________________________________________________
Cyber-Attacks by Al Qaeda Feared
Terrorists at Threshold of Using Internet as Tool of Bloodshed, Experts Say

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 27, 2002; A1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200711_pf.html
__________________________________________________________________
Al-Qaeda cyber alarm sounded

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2002-07-26-fcw-attacks_x.htm

July 25, 2002

By William Matthews
From Federal Computer Week

There is a 50% chance that the next time al-Qaeda terrorists strike the United States, their attack will include a cyberattack, Rep. Lamar Smith R, Texas, warned.

In closed-door briefings for members of Congress, Smith said officials from federal law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies disclosed that al-Qaeda operatives have been exploring U.S. Web sites and probing the electronic infrastructure of American companies in search of ways to disable power and water supplies, disrupt phone service and damage other parts of the critical infrastructure.

A successful cyberattack could cause billions of dollars in damage and lead to thousands of deaths, Smith told a gathering of congressional staffers and technology industry representatives July 23.

Al-Qaeda members seem especially interested in how they might disable the systems that provide electricity to California, Smith said. If it were to succeed, hospitals could be left powerless, causing patients to die, and commerce and much other activity would come to a halt, causing billions of dollars of economic damage.

Such a cyberattack could be used to dramatically increase the damage done by a physical attack, said Smith, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

About 90% of the nation's critical infrastructure is privately owned, and much of it remains vulnerable to cyberattacks, according to the Business Software Alliance, a technology industry association.

A June survey by the BSA showed that 74% of the technology professionals asked thought it was "nearly certain" that there will be a cyberattack against American financial institutions in the next 12 months. Respondents said that attacks also are likely against communications systems, transportation infrastructure, water systems, dams and power plants, the survey concluded.

Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said they expect a major cyberattack against the federal government in the next 12 months. And they said there is a gap between the likelihood of an attack and the government's ability to respond to it. The findings prompted BSA president Robert Holleyman to call for creation of a Cyber Security Agency within the Homeland Security Department.

In Congress, the House this month passed Smith's Cyber Security Enhancement Act, but the bill focuses more on catching, prosecuting and punishing cybercriminals than on strengthening systems to withstand cyberattacks.

Copyright © 2002, fcw.com. All rights reserved
__________________________________________________________________
Mock cyberwar fails to end mock civilization
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/30/mock_cyberwar_fails_to_end/

Posted in Security, 30th August 2002 14:25 GMT
__________________________________________________________________
Q&A: Security expert says cyberterrorism is exaggerated

October 2, 2002  (Computerworld) -- Bruce Schneier, designer of the popular Blowfish encryption algorithm, CTO of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. and renowned security expert, spoke with Computerworld Canada during his recent visit to Toronto.

http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,74791,00.html
__________________________________________________________________


http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-02n.html

Detecting Cyberattacks By Profiling "Normal" Computer Habits

Anaheim - Oct 11, 2002
An early version of a new software system developed by University at Buffalo researchers that detects cyberattacks while they are in progress by drawing highly personalized profiles of users has proven successful 94 percent of the time in simulated attacks.

The "user-level anomaly detection system" was described Oct. 10, 2002 at the military communications conference known as MILCOM 2002 in Anaheim, CA.

"We have developed a new paradigm, proactively encapsulating user intent where you basically generate a profile for every single user in the system where security is a major concern," said Shambhu Upadhyaya, Ph.D., associate professor of computer science and engineering at UB and co-author of the paper.

In addition to the paper presentation, MILCOM invited Upadhyaya to give a half-day tutorial on the new intrusion detection system at the meeting.

Upadhyaya directs UB's Center of Excellence in Information Systems Assurance Research and Education, one of 36 in the U.S. chosen by the National Security Agency to develop new programs to conduct research and train students to protect the nation's information technology systems from cyberterrorism.

The new UB intrusion detection system is being developed for application in highly secure facilities, such as those in the military.

"Existing approaches look at a past record of computer activity because those systems produce audits of activity for every user," he explained. "Our methodology is a marriage of two known techniques: misuse and anomaly detection. We use an assertion/rule-based approach to precisely capture the initial bracket of activity and then fine-tune this profile to reflect ongoing activity, making highly personalized and accurate profiles possible.

"Also, since users are being constantly monitored, this system can detect intrusions or attacks on-the-fly."

The UB system generates a user profile according to data about standard operations and commands that each user follows to carry out specific tasks.

The system is designed to detect significant deviations from procedures followed by normal users.

While some commercially available computer security packages already feature user-profiling, Upadhyaya noted that they are based on "low-level" methods -- meaning they seek out deviations on the basis of huge amounts of data, so they end up creating many false alarms.

"User modeling is computationally hard," said Upadhyaya. "Since many of these existing systems treat this problem purely statistically, any deviation from the norm is signaled as an anomaly, but it is often the case that an intrusion has not occurred.

"It's a nuisance because an alarm can go off as often as every five minutes," he said.

By contrast, the system he developed with co-authors Rankumar Chinchani, a doctoral candidate in the UB Department of Computer Science and Engineering, and Kevin Kwiat of the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, N.Y., is based on the idea that the computation habits of normal users generally are well-defined and that he or she will work within those bounds.

"The normal behavior of computer users has been very well characterized," said Upadhyaya. "Normal users stick within well-defined parameters. Intruders or hackers, on the other hand, will not be able to carry out their intended operations within such well-defined parameters, and so will make the scope of his or her activities overly permissive," said Upadhyaya. "Our system is based on detecting that kind of behavior."

The key to the UB system's success and its "scalable" feature is that its monitoring system operates at a high level, examining commands that users execute to perform certain operations. This is in contrast to the low-level monitoring that many existing packages perform, which examine commands as basic as the ones and zeroes of which email messages are composed.

"Our system is looking for a sequence of operations that falls within certain 'normal' parameters," he explained.

"For example, if you want to make a document, you do certain things in a certain order, you create the document, you use a word processing program, you may run Spellcheck. Our system knows what to look for in the normal sequence that is necessary to accomplish this job. Any deviations from that are assumed to be potential cyberattacks."

The work was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, N.Y.
__________________________________________________________________
Here's an NWO site:
http://www.iwar.org.uk/


October 18, 2002

http://www.mail-archive.com/infocon@infowarrior.org/msg00284.html
A deadly cocktail of cyber and physical attack
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.green.html

November 2002

The Myth of Cyberterrorism
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56382

11.14.02

Study Makes Less of Hack Threat
__________________________________________________________________
Terrorists on the Net? Who Cares?
Noah Shachtman 12.20.02

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2002/12/56935
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/03/01/03/030103hncyberthreat.html

Cyberthreats not to be dismissed, warns Clarke

By DAN VERTON, Computerworld
January 3, 2003 3:42 pm PT

THE U.S. HAS ignored warning signs before: two attempts by al-Qaeda in 1994 to use airplanes as weapons, as well as public statements in 2000 about terrorists being trained as pilots.  [INSERT: LOL?]

Now Richard Clarke, chairman of the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, is trying to prevent new warning signs from being ignored -- signs that al-Qaeda's brand of terrorism has a growing cyber element and that the nation's economy is at risk.

Before taking his current post in October 2001, Clarke advised two presidents on cybersecurity and served as the country's first counterterrorism coordinator. Most of his time now is spent raising awareness of the changing nature of terrorism and the increasing relevance of cyberterrorism to the stated goals of groups such as al-Qaeda.

"Cyberspace still is underappreciated as a threat, and the solutions aren't as obvious as they are with physical security," said Clarke during an exclusive interview with Computerworld late last month. "We have no clue as a country how to protect our cyberspace. It is a totally different kind of issue."

Clarke said vulnerabilities in the nation's critical infrastructure stem mainly from unknown security holes in widely deployed software and from the constant influx of new technologies that often have unintended consequences for security.

One of his biggest concerns is the growing use of wireless technologies, he said. There have already been cases in Spain and Japan in which PC-based worms have infected hundreds of next-generation cell phones, tricking them into dialing local 911 emergency systems, Clarke added.

"Now, if you're a terrorist, the first thing you might want to do before an attack is take down the 911 system," he said.

According to Clarke, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were a turning point for the national effort to protect cyberspace.

"Before Sept. 11, [al-Qaeda] was interested in killing as many people as possible," he said. "After Sept. 11, [Osama bin Laden] starts talking about destroying the American economy. And he starts to talk about going after the economic infrastructure of the United States. You could drive around a lot of truck bombs and really not do a lot of damage to the economic infrastructure because it's so diverse and dispersed. But if you do it in cyberspace, you might have the ability to hit the entire financial services network simultaneously."

Clarke said he's aware that many people doubt the willingness and ability of terrorist organizations to carry out strategic cyberattacks against the U.S. But he said it's his job to think differently about the future -- and to do what some officials failed to do in the months leading up to Sept. 11.

"There are a lot of different people who can conduct cyberwarfare," Clarke said. "There are countries that are creating cyberwarfare units. There are criminal groups engaging in cybercrime. There are also some terrorist groups we know are looking at using cyberattack tools. But I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out who's going to be the next attacker."

Eliminating al-Qaeda, for example, "won't end the threat to us from cyberspace," he said.

And therein lies the challenge, according to Clarke. The U.S. needs to take the target of cyberspace away from its enemies by eliminating vulnerabilities, he said.
__________________________________________________________________
Cyber terrorism 'overhyped'
By Mark Ward
BBC News Online technology staff in Hanover

Friday, 14 March, 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2850541.stm
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-new-breed-of-cyberterrorist-480479.html

Cyber-nightmare
Robert Lenzner and Nathan Vardi, 09.20.04

http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0920/104.html

The new breed of cyber-terrorist

Could a ruthless new breed of cyber-terrorist cause meltdown at the click of a mouse? Jimmy Lee Shreeve reports

Wednesday, 31 May 2006
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/technology/07net.html

Attack of the Zombie Computers Is Growing Threat

January 7, 2007
__________________________________________________________________
Sources: Staged cyber attack reveals vulnerability in power grid

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/26/power.at.risk/index.html

From CNN's Jeanne Meserve

WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Researchers who launched an experimental cyber attack caused a generator to self-destruct, alarming the federal government and electrical industry about what might happen if such an attack were carried out on a larger scale, CNN has learned.

Sources familiar with the experiment said the same attack scenario could be used against huge generators that produce the country's electric power.

Some experts fear bigger, coordinated attacks could cause widespread damage to electric infrastructure that could take months to fix.

CNN has honored a request from the Department of Homeland Security not to divulge certain details about the experiment, dubbed "Aurora," and conducted in March at the Department of Energy's Idaho lab

In a previously classified video of the test CNN obtained, the generator shakes and smokes, and then stops.

DHS acknowledged the experiment involved controlled hacking into a replica of a power plant's control system. Sources familiar with the test said researchers changed the operating cycle of the generator, sending it out of control. Video Watch the generator shake and start to smoke »

The White House was briefed on the experiment, and DHS officials said they have since been working with the electric industry to devise a way to thwart such an attack.

"I can't say it [the vulnerability] has been eliminated. But I can say a lot of risk has been taken off the table," said Robert Jamison, acting undersecretary of DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate.

Government sources said changes are being made to both computer software and physical hardware to protect power generating equipment. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it is conducting inspections to ensure all nuclear plants have made the fix.

Industry experts also said the experiment shows large electric systems are vulnerable in ways not previously

 "What people had assumed in the past is the worst thing you can do is shut things down. And that's not necessarily the case. A lot of times the worst thing you can do, for example, is open a valve -- have bad things spew out of a valve," said Joe Weiss of Applied Control Solutions.

"The point is, it allows you to take control of these very large, very critical pieces of equipment and you can have them do what you want them to do," he said.

Adding to the vulnerability of control systems, many of them are manufactured and used overseas. Persons at manufacturing plants overseas have access to control system schematics and even software program passwords, industry experts say.

Weiss and others hypothesize that multiple, simultaneous cyber-attacks on key electric facilities could knock out power to a large geographic area for months, harming the nation's economy.

"For about $5 million and between three to five years of preparation, an organization, whether it be transnational terrorist groups or nation states, could mount a strategic attack against the United States," said O. Sami Saydjari of the nonprofit Professionals for Cyber Defense.

Economist Scott Borg, who produces security-related data for the federal government, projects that if a third of the country lost power for three months, the economic price tag would be $700 billion. [INSERT: COINCIDENCE? THAT THAT'S THE SAME CITED FIGURE AS THE 1ST "BAILOUT"?]

"It's equivalent to 40 to 50 large hurricanes striking all at once," Borg said. "It's greater economic damage than any modern economy ever suffered. ... It's greater then the Great Depression. It's greater than the damage we did with strategic bombing on Germany in World War II." [INSERT:  WHAT ABOUT THE "BAILOUTS" TODAY?]

Computer experts have long warned of the vulnerability of cyber attacks, and many say the government is not devoting enough money or attention to the matter.

"We need to get on it, and get on it quickly," said former CIA Director James Woolsey on Tuesday.

Woolsey, along with other prominent computer and security experts, signed a 2002 letter to President Bush urging a massive cyber-defense program.

"Fast and resolute mitigating action is needed to avoid a national disaster," the letter said.

But five years later, there is no such program. Federal spending on electronic security is projected to increase slightly in the coming fiscal year, but spending in the Department of Homeland Security is projected to decrease to less than $100 million, with only $12 million spent to secure power control systems.

Despite all the warnings and worry, there has not been any publicly known successful cyber-attack against a power plant's control system. And electric utilities have paid more attention to electronic risks than many other industries, adopting voluntary cyber-standards.

"Of all our industries, there are only a couple -- perhaps banking and finance and telecommunications -- that have better cyber-security or better security in general then electric power," Borg said.

And DHS notes that it uncovered the vulnerability discovered in March, and is taking steps with industry to address it.

While acknowledging some vulnerability, DHS's Jamison said "several conditions have to be in place. ... You first have to gain access to that individual control system. [It] has to be a control system that is vulnerable to this type of attack."

"You have to have overcome or have not enacted basic security protocols that are inherent on many of those systems. And you have to have some basic understanding of what you're doing. How the control system works and what, how the equipment works in order to do damage. But it is, it is a concern we take seriously."

"It is a serious concern. But I want to point out that there is no threat, there is no indication that anybody is trying to take advantage of this individual vulnerability," Jamison said. [INSERT: EXCEPT YOU!!!!!!!!]

 Borg notes that industry will have to remain forever vigilant at protecting control systems.

"It will always be an ongoing problem. It's something we will have to be dealing with [for] lots of years to come," he said.
__________________________________________________________________
CIA Says Hackers Have Cut Power Grid

http://www.pcworld.com/article/141564/cia_says_hackers_have_cut_power_grid.html

January 19, 2008

Robert McMillan, IDG News Service

Criminals have been able to hack into computer systems via the Internet and cut power to several cities, a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency analyst said this week.

Speaking at a conference of security professionals on Wednesday, CIA analyst Tom Donahue disclosed the recently declassified attacks while offering few specifics on what actually went wrong.

Criminals have launched online attacks that disrupted power equipment in several regions outside of the U.S., he said, without identifying the countries affected. The goal of the attacks was extortion, he said.

"We have information, from multiple regions outside the United States, of cyber intrusions into utilities, followed by extortion demands," he said in a statement posted to the Web on Friday by the conference's organizers, the SANS Institute. "In at least one case, the disruption caused a power outage affecting multiple cities. We do not know who executed these attacks or why, but all involved intrusions through the Internet."

"According to Mr. Donahue, the CIA actively and thoroughly considered the benefits and risks of making this information public, and came down on the side of disclosure," SANS said in the statement.

One conference attendee said the disclosure came as news to many of the government and industry security professionals in attendance. "It appeared that there were a lot of people who didn't know this already," said the attendee, who asked not to be identified because he is not authorized to speak with the press.

He confirmed SANS' report of the talk. "There were apparently a couple of incidents where extortionists cut off power to several cities using some sort of attack on the power grid, and it does not appear to be a physical attack," he said.

Hacking the power grid made front-page headlines in September when CNN aired a video showing an Idaho National Laboratory demonstration of a software attack on the computer system used to control a power generator. In the demonstration, the smoking generator was rendered inoperable.

The U.S. is taking steps to lock down the computers that manage its power systems, however.

On Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved new mandatory standards designed to improve cybersecurity.

CIA representatives could not be reached immediately for comment.
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/world/europe/24sicily.html

At Conference on the Risks to Earth, Few Are Optimistic

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: August 23, 2008


Dr. Antonino Zichichi, a physicist, ran a conference in Sicily to discuss global risks like cyberterrorism and climate change.

ERICE, Sicily — This ancient hilltop town, rife with Roman, Greek, Norman and other influences, is hosting a very modern gathering: a conference on global risks like cyberterrorism, climate change, nuclear weapons and the world’s lagging energy supply.

More than 120 scientists, engineers, analysts and economists from 30 countries were hunkered down here for the 40th annual conference on “planetary emergencies.” The term was coined by Dr. Antonino Zichichi, a native son and a theoretical physicist who has made Erice a hub for experts to discuss persistent, and potentially catastrophic, global challenges.

The participants were not particularly optimistic. They presented data showing that the boom in biofuels was depleting Southeast Asian rain forests, that “bot herders” — computer hackers for hire — were hijacking millions of computers, and that the lack of progress over handling nuclear waste was both hampering the revival of nuclear energy and adding to terrorism risks.

The meetings, which end Sunday, were sponsored by the Erice-based Ettore Majorana Foundation and Center for Scientific Culture and by the World Federation of Scientists in Geneva. Both organizations are led by Dr. Zichichi with what the physicist Dr. Richard L. Garwin, a longtime Erice conference participant and expert on nuclear weapons, affectionately called “imperious” zeal.

Dr. Zichichi, 78, controls every aspect of the sessions, including the seating in the seminars and the wine selections at the nightly dinners.

His goal is to foster what he calls “a science without secrets and without borders,” mixing disciplines and cultures, and to laud veterans and emerging talents in hopes of propelling breakthroughs.

He said past successes included focusing attention on the need to reduce nuclear stockpiles and developing the first detailed analysis of flood risks along the Yellow River in China.

The threat of cyberattacks was also a focus of this year’s meeting. In a session on information security, Hamadoun I. Touré, the secretary general of the International Telecommunication Union, warned that pervasive computer use, while offering the prospect of a global “knowledge society,” also made billions of individuals into potential superpowers.

“Every single brain on earth is equal and can trigger an attack,” he said.

Jody R. Westby, the chief executive of Global Cyber Risk, a Washington-based consulting company, warned that governments were not doing enough to anticipate attacks. She said that the United States, while investing heavily in classified work on communications networks, had only one small program doing advanced research on the vulnerabilities in the private networks that handle the brunt of government communications and information management.

In a workshop on the northward spread of mosquito-borne ailments, participants discussed the growing gap between wealthier and poorer nations in dealing with health risks.

After presentations on recent outbreaks of the tropical chikungunya virus in Italy, Baldwyn Torto of the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology in Nairobi, Kenya, suggested that too much of the discussion was focused on girding Europe against further outbreaks. A better approach, he said, would be to attack such diseases in the tropical spots where they originate.

At a final gathering on Saturday, Bill Fulkerson of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, said that meetings in the next several years would likely concentrate on the technological and scientific needs of developing countries that are trying to expand their economies without diminishing resources.

The daunting nature of the problems did not seem to blunt the experts’ determination to look for answers.

“What option do I have?” said Richard Wilson, 82, a Harvard physicist and an expert on nuclear power and environmental risk. “I could go down to Hilton Head and take a little club and knock a ball around the course, but I don’t find that a very attractive thought.”
__________________________________________________________________
Cybercrime toll threatens new financial crisis

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16092-cybercrime-toll-threatens-new-financial-crisis.html

14:50 20 November 2008 by New Scientist staff and Reuters


International regulation must be improved to avoid internet crime causing global catastrophe, some of the world's top crime experts have warned.

Damage caused by cybercrime is estimated at $100 billion annually, said Kilian Strauss, of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

"These criminals, they outsmart us 10, or a hundred to one," said Strauss.

Such online criminal organisations operate in a regulatory vacuum, committing crimes such as espionage, money laundering, and theft of personal information, experts told the European Economic Crime conference in Frankfurt.

"We need multilateral understanding, account and oversight to avoid, in the years to come, a cyber crisis equivalent to the current financial crisis," said Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Growing sophistication

The conference also heard warnings that internet crime is a threat to national security. After apparently politically motivated cyber attacks on Georgia and Estonia, foreign policy chiefs are concerned cybercriminals can now wield power on the international stage.

Calls for greater government oversight of the internet come at a time when strengthened regulation is more attractive than ever to policymakers who once preferred more laissez-faire strategies.

As well as financial watchdogs getting more powerful as the global economic crisis continues, regulators in areas outside finance are expected to get more powerful too.

The president of Interpol, Khoo Boon Hui, said tech-savvy gangs from China, India, Eastern Europe and Africa were coming up with ever more sophisticated ways of swindling money from vulnerable people.

The developing world is seen as one of the most important fronts for tougher oversight. As poor countries become more technologically connected, they become an ever-richer source of computers to hijack and cheap cybercrime labour.

[Anti_Illuminati]

https://www.cwid.js.mil/public/CWID07FR/pdffiles/briefs.pdf

https://www.cwid.js.mil/public/CWID08FR/pdffiles/briefs.pdf

Alarming differences between NORTHCOM 2007 vs. 2008 documents.

2007 document (where it shows the map with the treasonous disgusting NORTHCOM logo at the bottom/middle of the US:

"HS/HD SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OVERVIEW

Vignettes were focused in areas of interest to CWID participants.  For instance, events in the northwest supported Canadian planning for the 2010 Olympics while events in West Virginia and South Carolina supported those states' annual exercises and technology assessments."

Mass Evacuation from northern Virginia area into West Virginia, surrounding states Earthquake, San Diego, CA.

Hurricane preparation; landfall, Charleston, S.C.

Chemical release, NSWC Fallbroook, CA,

Merchant ships missing; one found off San Diego with 10kt nuclear device; one found off Charleston, launching cruise missile at city

Fuel spill, Potomac River

Attack on refinery; state of Washington

Anthrax attacks at train stations, Vancouver, BC, and Seattle, WA.

Chemical weapon explosion, rail station, Fredericksburg, VA.

Radiological dispersion device (RDD) threat, San Diego; RDD detonation, Boston, MA.

Man Portable Air Defense threats, San Diego, Seattle, Vancouver

Truck bombs at power plant, Virginia; PETCO park, San Diego

Suspicious ship activity, port of Charleston

Wildland fires, San Diego; along U.S., Canada border

Mass Evacuation from Mexico as a result of a plague outbreak

Hostage situation, Colorado Springs, CO; high ranking NORAD-USNORTHCOM official
__________________________________________________________
2008

I will list the new things in their 2008 map [highlighting scenarios of greatest/documented/readily executable via False Flag mechanisms/Gain for the criminal elite/on their agenda, etc.] (look at it for yourself as well):

TWO PANDEMIC INFLUENZA OUTBREAKS LISTED ON MAP, ONE IN COLORADO, AND THE OTHER IN OTTAWA CANADA.

Nuclear attack and an offshore nuclear explosion listed in California, San Francisco area.

Floods listed up in Washington State

Tunnel Explosion in Wisconsin

"spill of national significance"

"Search and Rescue"

Chemical explosion

Bridge attack

School Hostages [INSERT:  THIS WOULD FIT INTO A NEW VIRGINIA TECH/COLUMBINE MKULTRA SCENARIO TO USHER IN BILDERBERG ANTI-GUN BS VIA PUPPET OBAMA]

Also new on the 2008 map:

"Homeland Defense and Security scenario vignettes cover a broad range of significant terrorist activities, to include cyber attacks directed at Canada and the U.S. as a result of CTF (Coalition Task Force) operations as well as several natural disasters.

See:  http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=87140.0
Cyber Terrorism Discredited, NORTHCOM-BAH FALSE FLAG(S) Preemptively Exposed
CYBER-"TERROR", BROUGHT TO YOU BY: (Pics of some of the perpetrators of cyber terror)

Booz Allen “Cyber-War” Simulation Gives Leaders Taste of Real Thing (posted in thread but here is the direct link again:  http://www.boozallen.com/publications/article/41366264

If you type in "Booz" in the Northcom documents, you will see that Booz Allen Hamilton is listed as a Government/Corporate Developer for "NGB" which is NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, for something called "Event-based Common Operational Picture (ECOP).  Type into google:  "Booz Allen Hamilton" "NGB "Northcom" with the quotes...

Also notice the nonsense codenames they have for the states/regions:  "Lewizziland", and they refer to Arizona as "Terrizona" (basically denoting that every single person in the state is a terrorist that must be killed, which would also be the case for the entire US in their view.)  Notice also they list THE UNITED KINGDOM (referred to as a "company" to hide their obvious meaning of it being that the United Kingdom is one of their SECRET ENCLAVE support nations) IN THE 2008 WARGAME SCENARIO AS A NORTHCOM FORCE THAT THEY DEPICT USING TO ATTACK THE U.S.:  "United Kingsom (UK) A Company on patrol; uncover arms cache resulting in firefight and request CAS from UK Air Combat Command." (What the F***?)
__________________________________________________________
FROM 2004

http://www.ifpafletcherconference.com/oldagendas/2004agenda.htm

National Security Strategy and Policy: Planning for and Responding to Threats to the U.S. Homeland

October 28-29, 2004
Ronald Reagan Building
and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.[/B]

AGENDA

DAY ONE - Thursday, October 28

6:45 – 8:15 AM — Conference Registration and Informal Reception
Amphitheater Foyer

8:15 – 8:30 AM — Conference Welcome and Introduction
Amphitheater

    Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

    Lieutenant General Joseph R. Inge, USA, Deputy Commander, U.S. Northern Command

8:30 – 9:15 AM — Opening Keynote Address
Amphitheater

    The Honorable Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
    Introduction by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.

9:15 – 10:45 AM — Session 1 - Amphitheater
Anticipating and Assessing U.S. Vulnerabilities in a Changing Threat Environment

    This session will provide a survey of vulnerabilities and threats that are being addressed and issues that still need to be considered in a comprehensive strategy for homeland security/defense. Issues to be discussed include steps taken since 9/11 to plug existing gaps in such areas as border security, airports, and seaports. What are the major remaining vulnerabilities and to what extent do they create threats for which we must prepare in the months and years ahead? This session will include a discussion of catastrophic events characterized as having low or unknown probability but extremely high consequences, as was the case with 9/11.

Moderator:

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.

Speakers:

    Dr. Graham T. Allison, Jr., Douglas Dillon Professor of Government and Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
    Dr. Stephen E. Flynn, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
    Dr. Lowell L. Wood, Jr., Senior Staff Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Commissioner, Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack
    Dr. Philip D. Zelikow, Director, The Miller Center and White Burkett Miller Professor of History, The University of Virginia and Executive Director, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Key topics

    • Protecting Critical Infrastructure
    • Securing Cyberspace
    • Understanding Bioterrorism
    • Nuclear/Radiological Terrorism
    • Protecting Borders and Transportation Systems
    • Food Safety and Agriculture Protection
    • Identifying and Coping with Future Threats
    • The Missile Threat
    • Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and the Economic Infrastructure

10:45 – 11:00 AM — Break

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM — Session 2 - Amphitheater
The Intelligence Conundrum: Developing Actionable Intelligence for Homeland Defense/Security

    The purpose of this session is to assess the role of intelligence especially in the post-9/11 setting. This includes the need to develop actionable intelligence both to anticipate and respond to the threats to the United States and to share intelligence across departments and agencies, and from the federal to the state and local levels. This session is designed to build upon the 9/11 experience and to consider recommendations such as those set forth by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States as well as other critiques and proposals for improving intelligence collection and analysis in light of the 21st century security challenges facing the United States as we prepare for homeland defense/security. In short, this session would address the fundamental issue facing decision-makers today: namely, when and how do we know that action must be taken?

Moderator:

Dr. Richard Shultz, Professor of International Politics and Director, International Security Studies Program, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

Speakers:

    R. James Woolsey, Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton, and former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
    Michael Noll, Director, J-2, U.S. Northern Command
    Russell E. Travers, Deputy Director for Information Sharing and Knowledge Development, Terrorist Threat Integration Center
    Dale Watson, Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton, and former Executive Assistant Director for Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Key topics

    • Improving Information Sharing and Deciding Who has a Need to Know
    • Integrating and Disseminating Actionable Intelligence
    • Reorganizing from the Bottom Up and from the Top Down
    • Structural Barriers to Joint Intelligence Collection and Analysis
    • Bridging the Foreign-Domestic Divide
    • Developing Collection Capabilities: Priorities and Resource Requirements

12:45 – 2:00 PM — Luncheon and Address
Atrium Ballroom

Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy
Rob Wright, National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Associate Secretary
Introduction by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.

2:15 – 4:00 PM — Session 3 - Amphitheater
Relating Homeland Defense to Homeland Security

    The purpose of this session is to examine what has been accomplished since 9/11 while also setting forth issues for future action. The unprecedented nature of the threat to the United States and the traditional role of the military in American society raise challenges for Homeland Defense (HLD) and Homeland Security (HLS) planning. It is critical to understand the distinction between the role the Department of Defense (DOD) plays with respect to National Security and the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the lead federal agency for HLS.

HLD operations fall under the lead responsibility of DOD, while other federal departments and agencies support DOD’s efforts. DHS also coordinates supplemental Federal assistance when the consequences of an incident exceed State, local, or tribal capabilities. In most cases, the lines of authority and responsibility prior to potential catastrophic events have already been established. The session is designed to provide a greater understanding of the relationship between homeland security and homeland defense – and an understanding that the key is who is in charge. This includes substantive issues as well as organizational arrangements.

Moderator:

Dr. Jacquelyn K. Davis, Executive Vice President,
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis

Speakers:

    Lieutenant General Edward G. Anderson III, USA (Ret.), Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton, and former Deputy Commander, United States Northern Command
    The Honorable Stephen M. Duncan, Director, Institute for Homeland Security Studies, National Defense University
    Edward A. Flynn, Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts ** Unable to attend conference
    Andrew Howell, Vice President, Homeland Security, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg, Adjutant General of Washington State, Washington Military Department

Key topics

    • The New National Response Plan: Integrating Prevention, Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation Plans
    • Identifying Lead Responsibilities
    • Providing Federal Support to State and Local Authorities, including the Operation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act
    • The Role of DOD, NORTHCOM, and other Government Offices/Agencies in Homeland Defense and Civil Support
    • Providing Military Assistance to State and Local Authorities: The Role of the National Guard
    • Relating governmental and private sector responsibilities

4:00 – 4:15 PM — Break

4:15 – 5:45 PM — Session 4 - Amphitheater
Essential Capabilities for a Layered and Integrated Homeland Defense and Homeland Security

    The goal of this session is to consider the key capabilities for homeland defense/security. This includes essential military forces as well as strategies and command and control issues for homeland defense/security. Discussion will encompass relationships among the various components of homeland defense. The session is designed to consider efforts to bring greater integration and coordination and to create essential capabilities for homeland defense. Discussion will focus on what has been done since 9/11 and what remains to be done in order to assure that such capabilities are available when and where they are needed and that they function efficiently by themselves and with each other.

Moderator:

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.

Speakers:

Lieutenant General Joseph R. Inge, USA, Deputy Commander, U.S. Northern Command
Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau
Vice Admiral Terry Cross, USCG, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III, USAF, Director, Missile Defense Agency

[INSERT:  In reference to the above highlighted in red, (keep in mind that was 5 years ago) see:  http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=88452.0  *ALERT* NORAD-USNORTHCOM has Integrated N. Guard AND COAST GUARD!]

Key topics

    • Securing the Skies
    • Protecting the Maritime Approaches [INSERT:  Ahh, so you thought of the Mumbai approach 5 years ago huh?  Why didn't that knowledge stop the Mumbai attacks since you began wargaming this back in 04'?  Because it was carried out by your own kind that's why.]
    • Defense against Missile Attacks
    • Achieving Border Protection and Providing “Smart Borders”
    • Assuring the Protection of Cyberspace
    • Relating NORTHCOM to other Commands to Provide Integrated Homeland Defense [INSERT: Again, see:  http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=88452.0]

6:00 – 7:00 PM — Reception - Oculus

7:00 – 9:00 PM — Dinner, and Address - Atrium
Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.), Deputy Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
Keeping America Safe: Progress and Partnerships in the 21st Century
Introduction by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.

DAY TWO - Friday, October 29

<<Top>>

7:30 – 8:30 AM — Conference Registration and Informal Reception

8:30 – 10:00 AM — Session 5 - Amphitheater
Anticipating and Defending against Bioterrorism

    The purpose of this session is to consider key issues of bioterrorism and the respective roles of federal, state, local, and private sector capabilities. This discussion will reflect the diversity of biological agents themselves as well as how they might be used. It will focus on known biological agents as well as the ongoing biological revolution to create lethal or incapacitating weapons. The session will include the disruptive and destructive effects of biological weapons as well as the types of targets that might be the object of attack. Of central concern in this panel are the response requirements from the federal to the local level.

Moderator:

Dr. Charles M. Perry, Vice President and Director of Studies,
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis

Speakers:

    Brig. Gen. Lloyd E. Dodd, USAF, Command Surgeon, U.S. Northern Command
    Dr. Charles Gallaway, Director, Chemical Biological Defense Directorate, Defense Threat Reduction Agency
    Dr. James M. Hughes, M.D., Director, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Patrick Libbey, Executive Director, National Association of County and City Health Officials
    Dr. Ivan C.A. Walks, Senior Medical Advisor, E Team, and former Chief Health Officer for the District of Columbia[/B]

Key topics

    • Lessons from the Anthrax Crisis of 2001
    • Threat Monitoring and Incident Assessment
    • Resource Requirements and Coordination
    • Emergency Response and Support, including Critical Surge Capabilities
    • Consequence Management
    • Legal and Civil-Military Action and Cooperation
    • Public Health Issues, including Surveillance and Testing, Immunizations, Isolation, or Quarantine

10:00 – 10:15 AM — Break

10:15 – 11:45 AM — Session 6 - Amphitheater
Strengthening International Cooperation

    This session will provide an opportunity to discuss the international dimensions of homeland security. Vulnerabilities and threats to allies such as the 3/11 attacks in Spain and other terrorist acts abroad will be addressed. Consideration will be given to priorities such as intelligence exchange for enhancing cooperation among allies. In addition to transatlantic and other international cooperation, what has been done, and what still needs to be done, to strengthen relationships with Canada and Mexico, in light of their direct interest to NORTHCOM and geographic proximity to the United States?

Especially in light of NORTHCOM’s area of responsibility, this session is designed to strengthen the dialogue by including Canadian and Mexican perspectives. In addition, given the importance of forward regions and the global terror setting, as well as the increased role it plays in combating terrorism and out-of-area efforts, the session will include NATO participation.

[INSERT: HAHAHA, THIS WAS BEFORE THE SPP/NAU DOCUMENTS WERE SIGNED!  BUSTED!]

[INSERT:  As you can see in the official NORAD-USNORTHCOM documents,  NATO IS NOT LISTED AMONG THE UNCLASSIFIED ENCLAVE, IT IS PART OF THE SECRET ONES (why they admit to the existence of something that they themselves say is secret, is beyond me), but I can take a good guess at it:  They didn't expect non-military "civilian" eyes to be reading their documents. it was not easy to find, in fact I found it by accident while researching Ptech!

Moderator:

Ambassador Stephen W. Bosworth, Dean, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

Speakers:

    Dr. David M. Abshire, President, Center for the Study of the Presidency, and former United States Ambassador to NATO
    The Honorable Lisa Bronson, Deputy Under Secretary for Technology Security Policy and Counterproliferation and Director, Defense Technology ** Unable to attend conference
    Ambassador John Dinger, Deputy Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, Department of State
    Oscar Rocha, President, The Joaquin Amaro Foundation for Strategic Studies
    E.C. Whiteside, Head, Weapons of Mass Destruction Center, NATO

Key topics

    • International Information/Intelligence Coordination, Exchange, and Integration
    • Enhancing Cooperation with U.S. Neighbors and Others
    • Strengthening and Building on NATO
    • Benefiting from Other International Experience
    • Protecting Transnational Physical and Cyber Infrastructure
    • Increasing the Security of Global Transportation Systems and Commerce

12:00 – 1:15 PM — Luncheon and Address
Protecting the Homeland: Progress at Home and Abroad
Atrium Ballroom

    The Honorable Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, Homeland Security Council
    Introduction by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.

1:30– 3:00 PM — Session 7 - Amphitheater
Emerging Technologies for Homeland Security: Governmental and Industry Perspectives

    This session will address efforts to develop new technologies designed to prevent terrorist operations. This encompasses technologies to identify the transport of weapons of mass destruction toward and across U.S. borders. The panel will consider the spectrum of technologies for detecting chemical and biological, as well as nuclear materials. The discussion will include consideration of technologies that address issues of cargo security, passenger screening, and port security. Given the magnitude of the problems it faces and the scientific-technological base on which the nation can draw, the United States may be on the threshold of substantial technological and operational advances for homeland security/defense.  [INSERT: In reference to the bolded section, see:  Allbaugh-Rothschild-NORTHCOM-J. Beatty/TSSI-MUMBAI FF was for US Policestate http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=88519.0

Moderator:

Dr. Dale Klein, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs

Speakers:

    Shana Dale, Chief of Staff and General Counsel, Office of Science and Technology Policy
    Paul M. Longsworth, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy
    Dr. Hugo B. Poza, Vice President for Homeland Security, Raytheon Company
    John Stammreich, Vice President Homeland Security, Phantom Works, The Boeing Company

Key topics

    • Developing Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures
    • Developing Systems for Detecting Hostile Intent
    • Applying Biometric Technology to Identification Devices
    • Improving Technical Capabilities of First Responders
    • Providing Technologies for Improved Chemical Sensors and Decontamination Technologies
    • Preventing Infectious Disease

3:00 – 3:15 PM — Conference Conclusion
Closing Remarks - Amphitheater

    Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.
__________________________________________________________
by "Arneoker":

If we cannot trust nature to be neutral, then perhaps it is suicide terrorist chickens.  I mean that's how it sounds.

Diseases have been arising naturally for literally hundreds of millions of years!  But now we cannot presume a natural pathology for emerging diseases.  So who was behind the conspiracy about my daughter's recent cold?

I'm sorry, but if I follow the logic here, why don't I get to these kinds of conclusions.

Source

May 2 2006

Arneoker, your trivialization of the issues of bio-warfare belie your image as a serious, logical and thoughtful commentator. Your remarks about suicidal terrorist chickens and conspiracies behind cold viruses neatly ignore the following:

1) the historical elements surrounding Nixon’s abandonment of biowarfare;

2) the hidden biowarfare development work of the Russians;

3) the hidden deaths at Sverdlovsk stemming from an anthrax leak;

4) the fact that Ken Alibek, the #2 man in Russian bio-warfare, defected to the US, was fully de-briefed by the CIA, PBS, 60 Minutes and others, and has been hard at work here in the US for over a decade;

5) the tremendous ramping-up since approximately 1995 in preparedness drills, exercises and training for bio-terrorism;

6) Judith Miller’s extensive write-ups for the NY Times and in books about bio-warfare before and after 9/11 (yes, that Judith Miller);

7) any discussion of the Gulf War syndrome debates and controversies;

any discussion of SARS, West NileVirus, AIDS, smallpox, Ebola, Marburg fever, etc.;

9) the fact that the Bush administration has ramped up research in bio-warfare ;

[“In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. government is funding a massive new biodefense research effort, redirecting up to $10 billion toward projects related to biological weapons such as anthrax. The Pentagon's budget for chemical and biological defense has doubled; high-security nuclear-weapons labs have begun conducting genetic research on dangerous pathogens; universities are receiving government funding to build high-tech labs equipped to handle deadly infectious organisms; and Fort Detrick, Maryland, once the home of America's secret bioweapons program, is about to break ground on two new high-tech biodefense centers.”]

(see http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/03/02_400.html );

10) the fact that the use of biowarfare for political purposes is discussed in PNAC documents with Woolsey, Zakheim, and Jeb Bush as signatories;

11) any recognition of the significant financial ties between key Bush Administration officials and major pharmaceutical companies;

12) the existence of Admiral Poindexter’s stock market terror futures game;

13) the fact that Cheney is in charge of the administration's counter-terrorism efforts, and was "in the catbird seat" for 9/11;

14) the coincidences of “exercises” to prepare for events that amazingly occur in the middle of those exercises, both on 9/11 and in connection with the London subway bombings;

15) the fact that the White House staff were given ciprofloxacin on 9/11, and the Bush administration’s evasiveness in discussing this;

16) the anthrax scares and related events in the weeks after 9/11

[“Our government cannot locate the anthrax mailer, despite many knowledgeable bioweapons experts insisting the culprit can only be one of 10 to 12 people from within the U.S. biowarfare community. Our government is now planning to vaccinate at least half a million people to protect them from something that has not occurred, and whose existence cannot be confirmed. They are drawing up quarantine plans to deal with this same unconfirmed threat. And they plan to vaccinate those people quarantined from the unconfirmed threat.” [INSERT:  EVEN IF IT WERE "CONFIRMED", IT;S BESIDE THE POINT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A DELIBERATE ENGINEERED ATTACK]

17) the lies and saber-rattling by the White House about Iraq’s biowarfare capabilities;

18) the mysterious deaths of over a dozen micro-biologists; [INSERT:  yes, we know it's over 300]

19) the fact that Bush’s 2006 budget includes cuts in public health programs that would provide a defense against bioterrorism;

20) the existence of the Model Health Emergency Preparedness Program;

[“Americans are now in a situation where: a) The FDA is allowing drugs to be marketed as treatments for biological, chemical or radiological attacks without testing them for efficacy in humans; cool.gif Under MEHPA, states will arrest, charge and jail people for refusing to take a specific course of treatment for a biological, chemical or radiological attack; and c) A Court of Appeals has ruled that it is perfectly legal for an individual to be forcibly drugged while in government custody.”

21) that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act grants blanket immunity to pharmaceutical companies;

22) the fact that the CDC is engaged in laboratory research that will mutate the H5N1 avian influenza virus into transmissible or pandemic state;

23) the theory advanced by some that “the next 9/11” will be a Sverdlovsk-like “staged” leak of a biological agent;

24) the fact that a vice president and board member of Booz Allen Hamilton, which has created and facilitated wargames for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and other clients, including “exercises” focused on avian influenza, will speak at a “Bird Flu Summit” in DC in late June; this is the company that just recently predicted, on the basis of such simulation gaming, that a bird flu outbreak will overwhelm and shut down the Internet, and that same conference will also include speakers from the Department of Defense, Northrup Grumman (experts in battle management), and the MITRE Corporation (experts in Command, Communications, Control and Intelligence and the company that worked with PTECH and the FAA); or that two former Booz Allen Hamilton employees were R. James Woolsey and Dov Zakheim;

25) the national pandemic flu plan includes the use of National Guard troops to face possible insurrection;

26) that the U.S. Northern Command recently hosted representatives from more than 40 international, federal and state agencies for an exercise designed to provoke discussion and determine what governmental actions, including military support, would be necessary in the event of an influenza pandemic in the United States. "NORTHCOM will not be running the show in the event of a pandemic," said Dave Wilkins, the NORTHCOM exercise facilitator. "We will be taking guidance and requests from other agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, via the secretary of defense."

27) that investment bankers have warned that a flu pandemic could set off a global stock market crash;

28) that computer simulations have deduced that the bird flu pandemic will arrive in the US in California, but that Jeb Bush has predicted it will be Florida;

29) that Canadian military intelligence published a report last year entitled Recent Human Outbreaks of Avian Influenza and Potential Biological Warfare Implications;

30) that Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt recommended last month that Americans start storing canned tuna in order to prepare for an outbreak of pandemic flu;

31) significant criticism of the Bush bio-terror focus

( http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V7N2Sidel.pdf ) and

( http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/9/goozner-m.html ) and

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views02/0319-05.htm

32) this article ( http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8788 ), previously posted here at CGCS by SnuffySmith, which discusses Bush’s possible charge of the weaponization of avian influenza by Iran as a cause for war;

33) that Russia has accused the US of using the bird flu as a weapon;

34) the use of smallpox as a weapon of war in North America during the 18th century; or

35) the extensive use of PsyOps, propaganda and state-sponsored journalism inside the US and targeted at the American people.

Arne, I don’t think there’s a conspiracy behind your child’s cold.

But the rest of this, and the Bush administration's obvious penchant for telling the truth, have me a little concerned. I wonder why we are being made to live in fear, and I no longer trust the government or the MSM. They tell me that, when I stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting, I should also pick up several cartons of flaked albacore.

[TheGoodFight1984]

2009 AFCEA Homeland Security 2.0 Convention - This is tomorrow and Thursday (25/26 feb 2009) @ Reagan Intenration Trade Centre, Washington DC.

http://www.afcea.org/events/homeland/home.asp

Booz-Allen-Hamilton head honchos heading up following panels

Panel 5: Intelligence-Sharing

It has been nearly five years since the 9/11 Commission admonished the intelligence community for failing to “connect the dots” and detect the attack. (so they admit this now?) This panel will address the great strides already made, and the remaining challenges associated with, intelligence sharing in the today’s world.

Moderator: Mr. Richard Wilhelm:
Vice President
Booz Allen Hamilton
Former Head of Intelligence Community Staff &
National Security Advisor to Vice President Al Gore

10:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.

Panel 1: Customs and Border Protection (CBP): Leveraging Information-Sharing to Enhance Operations Between and at Ports of Entry
This panel will provide insight into the many ways in which CBP operational components are working together to utilize operational intelligence, information and data to anticipate, plan, prepare, interdict and respond to the continuous - and changing - stream of threats at and between Ports of Entry. The panelists will explore CBP projects, programs, task forces and investments, with emphasis on lessons-learned and the way ahead for information-sharing and collaboration across the organization. Each member of the panel will address their individual area of responsibility within CBP. This dynamic discussion will include a look at the unique threats entering the US through its ports; special challenges along the northern border; the changing relationship between Intelligence and Targeting; and "What next?" for CBP in its continuing evolution within the Department of Homeland Security.

Moderator: Mr. George J. Weise
Principal
Booz Allen Hamilton
Former Commissioner, U.S. Customs

Panel 4: Infrastructure Protection

Panel members from federal agencies and the private sector will discuss the necessity for and the challenges of reducing the vulnerability of key systems and infrastructures to natural and manmade threats.

Moderator: Ms. Janet Lyman
Vice President , US Government Security
Booz Allen Hamilton

Panelists:

Mr. Robert B. Dix, Jr.
Partnership For Critical Infrastructure Security
Information Technology Sector Chairperson &
Vice President, Government Affairs & Critical Infrastructure Protection
Juniper Networks

Mr. Richard Driggers
Director, Infrastructure Information Collection Division
Office of Infrastructure Protection National Protection and Programs Directorate
Department of Homeland Security

Mr. William F. Flynn
Director, Protective Security Coordination Division
Department of Homeland Security

Mr. Clyde D. Miller
Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security, Chemical Sector Chairperson
Director, Corporate Security

BASF

and here's the Martial Law planning comittee panel

3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.

Panel 3: DoD/Coast Guard/National Guard

Today’s complex security environment places increased demands on the capabilities and resources of departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. Individually, departments and agencies are not as effective as when we unify our actions toward achieving a common vision. DoD strongly supports initiatives to increase unity of effort across the government for addressing our common national security problems. The panel will discuss the significant progress toward this end that has been made over the past five years. The panel will also discuss the need for continued improvement  and sustained focus in developing whole-of-government strategies and plans, as well as addressing operational seams between military and civilian agencies. For homeland security, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security are establishing a pilot Task Force for Emergency Readiness consisting of a small group of interagency planners to develop plans that ensure a whole-of-government response to disasters. The task force will integrate local, state, and federal organizations, as well as the private sector.

Moderator: Mr. Bruce Walker
Corporate Director, Customer Relations
Homeland Defense/Security/Law Enforcement
Northrop Grumman Corporation

Panelists:

COL Mike Curry, USA
Deputy J6
NORTHCOM

CDR Keith "Kip" Whiteman, USCG
Deployable Operations Group (DOG)
United States Coast Guard

CAPT Michael P. Ryan, USCG
Commanding Officer
USCG Operations Systems Center

And also..

8:15 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.

Fireside Chat: "Integrating Homeland Security with Law Enforcement - - Lessons Learned and the Way Ahead"

Facilitator:  Sheriff Ted Sexton
Assistant Secretary, State and Local Enforcement
Department of Homeland Security

Panelists:

Sheriff Lee Baca
Sheriff, Los Angeles County
Los Angeles California

Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie
Sheriff, Clark County, Nevada
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Chief Cathy L. Lanier
Chief of Police
Metropolitan Police Department of the
District of Columbia

Mr. Robert Riegle
Director, State and Local Operations for Fusion Center
Department of Homeland Security

Sponsors:













and a list of exhibitors - worth keeping a close eye on what these pricks are up to..

http://www.afcea.org/events/homeland/exhibitorlist.cfm

[Dig]

Please do not forget the terrorists at Kroll Associates who have been conducting false flags and torture (contracted by US Government) for over 40 years (Vietnam, Cambodia, South and Central America):

Justice for Richard Chang campaign - 4th anniversary
http://www.dimsum.co.uk/community/justice-for-richard--chang-campaign---4th-anniversary.html
Wednesday, 09 July 2008

Richard Chang, senior business analyst died after a fall of over 80 foot after an interrogation by Kroll Associates relating to an anonymous document alleging fraud by senior directors.  The verdict at the Coroner's Inquest was suicide.Family, friends, campaigners and supporters will attend the 4th anniversary vigil of the death of Richard Chang

Why the circumstances surrounding Richard's death are suspicious?

The parents, sisters and friends of Richard Chang do not believe he committed suicide. The circumstances surrounding his death have not been properly investigated by the police.  The police decided that Richard had committed suicide very early on in their investigation and everything has been slanted towards that decision from the beginning.The police came to the decision it was a suicide because of;-

1.      An alleged suicide note.
2.      A witness who alleges he saw Richard climb over the fifth floor balcony.
3.      Howard Jones, a former detective superintendent of the Metropolitan police told the senior investigating officer that the death was not suspicious.What was wrong with their decision?

Alleged suicide note
Three forensic reports concluded that the possibility that the signature is not genuine cannot be ruled out.   The police have refused Mr and Mrs Chang's repeated request to test the original note for authenticity.Richard was told not to bring anything to the meeting.  Jones said he saw Richard with a notepad in the meeting.  The notepad was never found. The Coroner refused Mr and Mrs Chang's legal representatives to put forward any questions relating to the notepad.

Witnesses
Alastair Beattie, the only person who claims to have seen Richard climb over the balcony is not a reliable witness.  His witness statement and testimony at the inquest contain major discrepancies relating to descriptions and times. Beattie started working at Abbey five weeks before Richard died.  His statement states he is a senior business analyst.  His background is psychology, NLP and training by Guyanese Defence Police in jungle survival techniques.

The press officer for Abbey said in his witness statement that he saw Richard in his office on the fifth floor at 12.30.  Howard Jones and Peter Pender-Cudlip said that Richard was in the meeting between 10.45 to 1pm and did not leave the room.  It is impossible for Richard to have been in two places at the same time.A witness approached the family soon after the death and confirmed that they saw Alastair Beattie being called to the CEO's office with Richard's possessions in his hands before he had spoken to the police.   

Howard Jones  and Kroll Associates (corporate investigators)
Howard Jones was at the centre of a suspicious death.  The senior investigating officer was influenced by the narrative given by Jones. Jones's part on the day was suspicious because;-1.  He secretly recorded the interrogation with a devise hidden in his briefcase.  He did not give his copy of the recording of the interrogation to the police until 3 weeks after the incident.  We believe the tape has been edited.  Vincent Santeng ( the other person to be interrogated at 1.30pm) swore on oath the inquest that his recording of his interrogation had been heavily edited.  He alleges the parts relating to harassment and his race have been removed.  Abbey claim that Kroll did not inform them they were going to record the interrogation

Forensic analysis of audio tape of interrogation of Richard Chang

The expert witness report states:

(a) "In making the analogue copies of the digital recording the police have introduced noise which degrades the recordings because they have copied onto audio cassettes.  They have also been apparently careless insofar as the audio levels for each of the four sides (of the audio tapes) are different one to the other.  Also the left and right hand channels vary in level one to the other."

(b) Recording of Vincent Santeng's interrogation "The problem with this recording was that the audio level was set too high together with a ‘tinny' quality throughout which resulted in distortion of the replayed audio.  This makes it unsuitable to use as a control recording to compare the acoustic qualities of the interview room with the recording of the interrogation of Mr Chang"

(c) "The audio levels and break points suggest to me that the process used to generate the audio cassettes was less than satisfactory.  Because of this, analysis to investigate possible editing is difficult.  Also the recording of the interview with Vincent Santeng was not of good quality and was not suitable for use as a control recording.

(d) "At this stage I cannot go further than to say that it is possible that editing has taken place."

2.      Jones requested that no witnesses from Abbey should be present and that Richard should be interviewed on his own.

3.      The alleged suicide note was addressed to Jones

4.      Jones stated that the anonymous document contained allegations of fraud and   corruption.  He said in the interrogation he believed in part that these allegations were true.

5.      We believe that the senior directors' selection process used to select Richard and his line manager was fundamentally flawed.  The police will not release documents which we believe will show Richard did not write the anonymous document (and therefore would not have had a motive to commit suicide)

The Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Nathan Bostock (Head of Abbey Treasury service), Karen Fortunato (Company Secretary), Robin Parkinson (Legal Manager) told the police that the FSA had advised Abbey that whoever wrote the anonymous document was a threat to security. This was main reason given to the police why Richard had been called into the meeting, without notice that he was to be interrogated and hence denied his employment right to have a representative present to ensure fair play.  The Employee Relations Officer said he had a feeling that someone was going to be mistreated by management.  The FSA have confirmed in writing that they did not give any advice to Abbey about the anonymous document.

Forensic Post Mortem
A forensic post mortem was not carried out.  The pathologist did not turn up at the inquest so Mr and Mrs Chang's legal representatives were not able to put further questions to him.  Freddie Patel, the pathologist made a mistake in the Anthony Hardy case about the cause of death.  He ruled that the victim had died of natural causes when in fact she had been murdered.

B The Coroner's post mortem was not a forensic post mortem
The pathologist is a medical expert who determines the cause of death. The Post Mortem stated:Marks of violence. 

Treatment and identification
Large gaping deep laceration on the forehead and involved the left eye.  Severe compound skull fractures with extruded brain tissue received in separate bag.  Triple small circular bruises in a line on right shoulder. And red bruise to the front on right upper arm.  Small red abrasion on right elbow.  Superficial abrasions on the shins and front of the ankles.  Fracture deformity of left leg.  No other significant marks of violence.The pathologist conducted the post mortem based on the fact that the death was not suspicious.

Other post-mortems conducted by Dr Patel
Anthony Hardy killed three women and mutilated two of them to satisfy his "depraved and perverted" sexual cravings was jailed for life. Anthony Hardy dismembered two of his victims, leaving their body parts in bin bags near his home in Camden, north London. Nine months earlier officers had discovered the body of another woman in his flat, but her death had been put down to natural causes by Dr Patel. Dr Patel claimed that she died of a heart attack and not foul play. However, her death from "natural causes" would later be questioned when the remains of other women were discovered in Hardy's flat. It emerged that Hardy had also previously been investigated about a series of rapes. He pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to all three murders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/26/ukcrime.rebeccaallison

Inquest dismissed marks of violence
http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/n271103_2.htm 


The body
Witnesses have said prior to the fall there was no shouting or sound from Richard.Several witnesses have confirmed that there was hardly any or no blood where the body landed. It appears that the body landed head first on the left hand side of the head.Witnesses have confirmed that part of the skull broke away and brain tissue splattered on the walls and area around the body.  The post mortem confirmed that the cerebral arteries were severed.Our legal representatives at the inquest confirmed that in the photographs shown to them of the deceased lying on the floor showed no blood. 

Richard's Medical Records
Medical records prove conclusively that Richard did not have any history of mental illness.  They also show Richard had a weak right wrist due to an injury he sustained about 15 years.  It has been confirmed at the time of his death that his wrist was arthritic.

The Coroner and health and safety
Health and safety have confirmed that they received a call a few days after the death telling them that they were treating the death as a suicide.  The Coroner did not give his consent for the police report to be released to the health and safety team even though they had requested it.  As a result they did not know that the death was related to an incident at work and as a result no investigation was ever done on there part.

The Coroner and ACAS
The Coroner stated that he would be making a report in which he would make recommendations and ACAS would be invited to look at it.  ACAS have confirmed that they have never received a copy. Richard's colleagues from Abbey National informed the family that it was highly suspicious and that Richard would not have taken his life. They gave witness statements to the police concerning senior directors and alleged corruption and these were never followed up by the Police, CPS and the  Coroner,  Dr Anthony Reid.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What should scare many people about Kroll is that they have been focusing much of their resources on Data Warehousing, Data Management, and Cyber "Security".  Mix Ptech Risk Management Software with Kroll goons and you got a cyber SS force roaming the Internet unhindered, above the law, and out for blood.

http://www.krollontrack.co.uk

Kroll Ontrack and Ontrack are registered trademarks of Kroll Ontrack Inc. and/or its parent company, Kroll Inc.

[Anti_Illuminati]

File photo from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren of CWID 2007 technology testing.

http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/08_apr/web_pages/CWID08.html

CTF High, secret enclave(requires you accept certificate to download PDF)

Booz Allen “Cyber-War” Simulation Gives Leaders Taste of Real Thing
http://www.boozallen.com/publications/article/41366264

January 27, 2009

    * Listen to a January 30, 2009, Federal News Radio interview with Senior Vice President Mark Gerencser about a two-day cyber attack simulation held in Washington, DC.


(April 16, 2008) Hampton, Virginia –  How do you get information technologies from small innovative companies delivered to people in military, government and first responder communities? What if the technologies can help save lives during a wildfire or win the peace in Iraq?  [INSERT:  What if the technology can help with mass exterminations and preventing nationwide-online alerts of mass coordinated gun confiscations, and FEMA death camp kidnappings?

“CWID is a mechanism to connect the dots,” said Suzanne Magee, President/Chief Executive Officer of TechGuard Security, LLC, developer of just such a technology. Called PoliWall with Heuristic Internet Protocol Packet Inspection Engine (HIPPIE) Appliance, it has the capability to protect operational networks on the fly with minimal manual intervention.

The Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration (CWID) brings hundreds of technology representatives together with military and government experts from around the world. The process begins with a Federal Business Opportunity (FBO) publication every April (www.fedbizopps.gov) and ends with information technology assessments after the operational-scenario-driven demonstration every June. CWID is not an acquisition authority. However, it provides focus on promising solutions to specific warfighter/reponder requirements through a Final Report to DoD, government agencies and first responders published by October every year.

Getting into the process is the challenge. TechGuard started ahead of the game in 2005 through the DoD Mentor-Protégé Program (MMP). Their charter is to assist small businesses to successfully compete for prime contract and subcontract awards through partnership with large companies (Mentors).

“Our mentor, Booz Allen Hamilton, was key,” Magee explained. Their established relationship with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) soon connected TechGuard technology with CWID through the DISA Small Business Office and the yearly DISA Partnership Conference.

“Most small businesses see contracting with the government strictly as another sales opportunity, but we have experienced it differently,” Magee explained.

“Our path has forced a lot of discipline on us – forced us to articulate our technology and understand how to go forward. Our Mentor helped us connect with the right people at JITC (Joint Interoperability Test Command, part of DISA) to walk us through the process for PoliWall interoperability testing. Now we will be able to get feedback from warfighters through CWID demonstration scenario play.”

Col. Thomas Walrond, CWID Joint Management Office (CWID JMO) Director, expanded on Magee’s comments, saying, “CWID provides not only outreach to small businesses, but also partnership with other developers and with coalition countrys’ technology discovery efforts.”

TechGuard is exploring relationships with The MITRE Corporation and with the Ministry of Defense, New Zealand. Walrond said other technologies selected for CWID participation came through the DISA technology-capture engine into CWID. These included a collection of trials under the heading Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange System Cross Enclave Requirement, a call to provide warfighters and first responders with real-time operational information from across the range of security levels, unclassified to top secret.

Some other technologies to be tested include:

WorkFlow Manager and Brief Assembly Tool (WOMBAT) developed by the U.S. Navy. WOMBAT allows globally dispersed teams to feed information into a centralized collection portal that manages workflow and gathers, collates, and renders information into a consistent output format. WOMBAT eliminates unauthorized and unapproved changes to content through the use of authentication, permissions and a centralized approval process.

Common Information Centric Security (SecureD) developed by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) through the sponsorship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Secure D is a firmware based disk encryption technology that enhances the security of mobile computing devices (laptops, desktops and portable USB disk drives) by protecting data at rest with 256-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES).

Transitional Information Sharing Coalition (TISC) developed and sponsored by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and Defense Information Systems Agency ( DISA). TISC provides non-classified information exchange over the Internet to support planning, situational awareness and collaboration.

DISA is the lead agency in CWID, providing demonstration network engineering and daily support through the JMO staff. DoD, government, first response agencies and multinational counterparts all sponsor trials into CWID, based upon defined objectives. United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) oversees the event for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and directs the management group with a charter to facilitate technology fielding in the near term.

The global CWID network developed for June 2008 will join Australia, Canada, New Zealand,  United States, United Kingdom, NATO and Partnership for Peace nations, with associated information technology trials. There will be more than 20 international participants at multiple network sites around the world. Four continental U.S. sites will link to the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) site, Stuttgart Germany, the lead combatant commander for the 2008 event and task force commander for the demonstration scenario.

WHAT THE F*CK!!!  ALEX PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS ASAP!!!

For additional information, go to www.cwid.js.mil.

Introducing NORAD-USNORTHCOM'S (a client) Transparent Bridge Security Appliance with heuristic Ptech Artificial Intelligence Inference Engine to veto internet access to anyone they choose in the world.  "Hey, Ptech was good enough as one of the main tools that we used to carry out the black OP in NY, it's even more advanced now and provides bullet-proof Internet security--but we still need to tell 6+ billion people that they need Internet 2 or the entire IT Infrastructure will suffer massive attacks from CHINA, RUSSIA, internal Cyber criminals/terrorists.  We make sure Enterprise Architecture, and DoDAF 2.0 artificial intelligence based devices protect us, and hurt YOU when you don't comply with out demands!

Download the Product Sheet



http://www.netcaucus.org/events/2009/kickoff/demonstrators.shtml


TechGuard
The PoliWall is a network security appliance that allows the filtering of Internet traffic by country of origin. The demonstration will feature the PoliWall in a network environment with live data being sent through it. Graphs showing the traffic flow through the PoliWall will be shown for the user to examine. The user will be able to launch mock cyber-attacks from China, and then use the PoliWall to block the attack with one click of the mouse. The user will then see the resulting graph, which will have all attacking traffic stopped by the PoliWall and the US and coalition partners traffic still going through the device.[/size]
________________________________________________________________________
TechGuard Security
Mission Statement

TechGuard Security was founded in February 2000 to address National Cyber Defense initiatives and US Critical Infrastructure Security.  TechGuard provides trusted and award-winning Cyber Security Solutions [INSERT:  THEN YOU DON'T NEED INTERNET 2, CLOUD COMPUTING-- EVERYTHING IS FINE! through innovative research and development, consulting services and training for the DoD, Intelligence, DHS, Federal, Financial and Healthcare communities. TechGuardians ® address the current challenges of cybersecurity and privacy, specifically the problems of information management, network vulnerabilities, firewall integrity and network security concerns created by e-commerce initiatives, global Internet connections and cyberterrorism.

Office Addresses:

743 Spirit 40 Park Drive, Suite 206   
Chesterfield, MO 63005

1450 South Rolling Road,
Suite 2.027
Baltimore, MD 21227

DUNS #: 108776696 148485654
CAGE Code:1RL61 3WJG9

Contact Names:                                 

Suzanne Magee
President/CEO
Phone: (636) 519-4848
Fax: (636) 519-4850

Johnny Flores
Phone: (443) 543-5701
Fax: (443) 543-5700

NAICS Codes:                                     
541512, 334111, 334119, 443120, 517110, 518111, 518210, 541330, 541511, 541513, 541519, 541618, 541690, 541710, 561621, 611420, 611519

Year Established:                                                2000

Certifications:                                     
8(a) Certified – Small Business Administration (2003-2012)
                                                                Certified Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) – Small Business Administration
Woman-Owned Business Enterprise (WBE) – State of Missouri
                                                                Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) – State of Missouri, Maryland DOT
                                                                Minority-Owned Business Enterprise (MBE) – Maryland DOT

Contract Vehicles:                             
GSA Schedule 70 (GS-35F-0922P)
GSA 8(a) STARS – Functional Areas 1, 2, 3, 5 (GS-06F-0437Z)
DISA Encore II (Booz Allen Team)
Department of Justice ITSS III (BAE Systems Team)
                                                                DHS Eagle (BAE Systems Team)
USTRANSCOM A&AS (Unisys Team)
SeaPort Enhanced (Cogent Team)
NSETS II (DCCA Team)

Clients and Relationships:
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)                               Health Care
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)                           Financial
Defense Enterprise Computing Center (DECC)                           Academia
Department of Labor (DoL)                                                                               Defense Industrial Base
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)                           
Department of Commerce – NIST                                                   
Department of Justice (DoJ) / FBI                                                                                   
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
USTRANSCOM
US Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM)

Capability Overview: 
TechGuard provides network security and information assurance services including C4ISR, net-centric and SOA solutions, secure application development (CMMI Level 2), vulnerability assessments, policy development, security plans, secure network infrastructure design, training programs, intrusion detection, COOP, 24x7 incident response, DIACAP, NIST 800, FISMA OMB-130, HSPD-12, IPv6 compliance.
TechGuard researched and developed the adaptive Great Walls of Fire ® networking and network security appliances including the PoliWall ® with HIPPIE ® technology (featured at CWID ’08), firewalls, intrusion detection systems, Spam filter; and the Wireless Analysis and Visualization Engines for Sensors (WAVES™) technology.  TechGuard artificial intelligence research, funded in part by the NIST Advanced Technology Program and the Battle Command Battle Lab at Ft. Huachuca. 

What TechGuard CLIENTS Say About Us

“Since TechGuard has come on board, issues or concerns have been addressed from a proactive stance as opposed to reacting to incidents. Most notably, there has not been a single incident that has reached my level with a negative connotation or concern related to the capability of TechGuard to meet its contractual obligations. Simply stated, I am very pleased with the service provided by TechGuard, and expect that such exemplary service will continue.” - William G. Wells, Director, Defense Enterprise Computing Center

INSERT:  INTERNET 2 AND CLOUD COMPUTING ARE REACTIONARY, STOP CONTRADICTING YOURSLEVES, AND JUST ADMIT THAT YOU WANT TO COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN FREE SPEECH!!!  THERE ARE ***NO*** SECURITY THREATS THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON/MITRE, etc. BLACK OPS!

“Our needs are very special as we have both UNIX and Microsoft windows system in addition to shopping cart and serious firewalls issues.  We used 2 and 3 separate services to accommodate our many systems. Finally TechGuard is able to accommodate all our issues.  They are the best I have seen in the industry in many years.”  - Christine, CEO of a global distribution company*

“TechGuard does great work.  I would definitely recommend them to anyone needing help with security concerns.  They provided all of the information that I requested and more.  I would consider them to be one of the best in the St. Louis area when it comes to security.”
- Steve, CIO of a large law firm in St. Louis

“Very good security architecture, good vendor equipment including Intrusion Detection System (IDS), excellent third party security provider (TechGuard).  Risk of intrusion is extremely low.” – from report of Business Process Analysis by independent auditor of TechGuard client

“They came in on time and on budget.  They even went above and beyond.” – Anthony Angel, contract manager for Metro (St. Louis Metro Area Public Transportation Agency
 
What TechGuard PARTNERS Say About Us

“TechGuard Security has been an excellent partner on the Department of Labor contract.  TechGuard has superior technical abilities, especially in the areas of networking and security and we look forward to future contracting opportunities with TechGuard Security.” – Vice President, BAE Systems

“I wish all my sub's would respond in such a timely and organized manner.  I am looking forward to working with you.” – Subcontracts Administrator, Booz Allen Hamilton

“TechGuard has been an excellent vendor to work with.  They are respectful, honest, and talented.  They, unlike many other vendors we have dealt with over the years, truly listen to the client’s needs and try to come up with a solution, not just a canned product or service that suites their own needs.  They truly are solutions and client focused.” – President, Core Solutions

“Access US is impressed with both TechGuard’s performance and industry reputation, and has selected TechGuard to provide security testing for its infrastructure security for our own data center” – President, Access US ISP
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.techguardsecurity.com/services.php
TechGuard Services

Network security empowers your organization by enabling efficient communications. However, your organization is only as secure as the weakest component of your security policy. TechGuard believes that security is a process, not a product. Our goal is to provide our clients with an overall security process. All organizations, small or large, regardless of industry, benefit from TechGuard’s five-step process to provide a complete security solution.

INSERT:  THEN STOP WORKING ON INTERNET 2 AND CLOUD COMPUTING BECAUSE ****YOU YOURSELVES ALREADY HAVE ALL THE SECURITY YOU NEED BECAUSE YOU ARE USING AI SOFTWARE THAT WAS SOLD FOR 6 MILLION DOLLARS, WHICH YOU ALSO USED TO KILL 3,000 PEOPLE ON 9/11!  AND THE SOFTWARE CAN IMPROVE ITSELF, MAKING SURE THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY STAYS UP TO DATE AGAINST ANY SECURITY THREAT THAT COULD EVER POSSIBLY EXIST!!!!!!!  STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO THE WORLD!!!!!!

Instead of providing a "one size fits all" approach, TechGuard customizes its services to suit each client’s specific requirements. This approach ensures that your organization receives the best service at the best value.

Companies representing all industry sectors, government agencies and academic institutions have realized the benefits of the TechGuard Security philosophy. In addition, TechGuard has developed specialized offerings for the healthcare and financial markets
________________________________________________________________________
https://www.cwid.js.mil/public/CWID08FR/htmlfiles/534war.html
IT 5.34 ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
INTRODUCTION | WARFIGHTER | TECHNICAL/INTEROPERABILITY | INFORMATION ASSURANCE | SEIWG
(If a text entry is not linked, there is no assessment in that category for this trial)

PERFORMANCE

TechGuard Security provided the CWID Homeland Security /Homeland Defense network with an innovative security technology. The PoliWall™ Security Appliance with HIPPIE™ Filter Technology, a layer 2 transparent-bridging network security appliance, rapidly determined the country of origin for all incoming packets using HIPPIE (Hueristic Internet Protocol Packet Inspection Engine) technology. Packets were filtered according to customer-defined country maps and exception lists that were bound to physical interfaces and network resources for specific protocols. PoliWall was easily customized using an intuitive graphical interface that included a Scalable Vector Graphic world map. During CWID Execution, Poliwall worked flawlessly. The IT provided accurate and timely alerts when user configurable conditions were met, automatic bandwidth throttling, immediate bandwidth blocking upon demand, and accurate reporting when requested. Other than brief outages caused by an overloaded power circuit at Dahlgren, Poliwall provided 100% availability. Warfighters regarded Poliwall as a top performing technology.

Additionally, engineers at MNIS JPO conducted real-time testing in a live environment outside of the CWID Scenario during week two. An ad hoc test to TechGuard Security’s HIPPIE (Heuristic IP Packet Inspection Engine) technology successfully provided real-time protection for the CWID network.  MNIS JPO operators filtered network traffic based on the country of origin and facilitated policy-based decisions for access to network resources.

Assessment Level

Nine warfighters evaluated the trial through JDCAT questionnaires at the following sites: NSWC Dahlgren, VA (3 warfighters), USNORTHCOM Peterson AFB, CO (2 warfighters), ESC Hanscom AFB, MA (2 warfighters), SPAWAR San Diego, CA (2 warfighters). All provided background biographies and were qualified to operate and interact with the Poliwall-Hippie trial. Additional feedback was also provided by Site Network Administrators and Site Engineers.

Technical Support/Training

On-site trial representatives were available at each site on a continual basis to assist as required. Warfighters reported the technical support they received was excellent. Poliwall trial representatives at each site, provided over the shoulder instruction, computer-based training and additional virtual training when necessary. Due to Poliwall’s simple interface and functionality, extensive training was not required. Also Poliwall’s help menu was extremely detailed and intuitive. The individual training videos, PoliWall User Guide, and Quick Reference Guide provided quick and accurate clarification to any questions. Warfighters reported that on-site training more than adequately supported Poliwall/Hippie operations during CWID and even with minimal training junior enlisted personnel operated the system without difficulty.

CAPABILITIES/FINDINGS

The ability to demonstrate tools to improve Information Assurance and posture between government agencies, demonstrate computer network defense capabilities to support non-military partners and demonstrate computer network capabilities that support collaboration with the Department Homeland Security Emergency Management COI: The Poliwall Security Appliance is compatible for both IPv4 and IPv6. Poliwall demonstrated a solution to reduce the time necessary to block or throttle Internet bandwidth to/from individuals and/or county groups compared to a traditional firewall. It also provides automatic alerts to pre-selected email accounts notifying users of activity. Poliwall’s Security Appliance filter engine blocked or limited access to countries specified by the user.  [INSERT:  This means that at their discretion, they could prevent ALL nations outside the U.S. from being able to provide NON-PSY-OPS, REAL NEWS to Americans during physical martial law, and mass FEMA camp roundups/exterminations.  Everyone in the United States can be subjected to ONLY Rendon, Lincoln Group, Omnicom, etc. Psy-Ops propaganda when they get to that phase in their overthrow of the constitutional Republic.]

Poliwall also provided Transparent Bridging so attackers were unaware of monitoring thereby preventing attacks. Poliwall’s transparent bridging appliance did not require user changes to any network parameters; a simple plug-in was all that was required. The Robust Role Based Access Control (RRBAC) provided useful role basing, allowing users system access for monitoring. RRBAC allows role based access with limited authority to change user access. The High Volume Traffic capability filtered traffic before it reached the firewall. This capability potentially reduces traffic for the firewall to process, eliminates possible slowdowns and improves network speed. Poliwall’s Comprehensive Logging Utility was an added feature that allowed live and historical network traffic monitoring, providing awareness to high interest network access attempts and the timeframe, with the opportunity to view specific network traffic for further investigation. Warfighters liked the Graphical User Interface (GUI) as it was very intuitive, responsive and impressive; the GUI feature, made the system very easy to use. The point and click functionality and easy to interpret graphics added simplicity for all users.

WARFIGHTER/Operator PERSPECTIVE 

Warfighters found the Poliwall technology a very strong, intuitive product that could be easily configured with the potential to reduce traffic from hostile nations. Warfighters liked the unique approach to the broad stroke security filter and throttle and the ability to block whole countries by clicking on a map. Easy to learn, warfighters with limited networking background and with minimal training, quickly navigated in and around the system to perform different filtering and prioritizing techniques. Warfighters appreciated the auto throttle capability and the ability to view the live stats after every change adding credibility to the situational awareness picture. The help menu was put together well and enhanced operations. Poliwall’s most successful attribute during briefings was the ability to see the live status of network traffic and how an entire country was blocked from the network with one mouse click. Warfighters observed real-time changes on the screen when specific network traffic disappeared and reappeared as they unblocked them. Also, important was the bandwidth percentage allocations to specific groups. No real issues were identified with the Poliwall technology; however, one warfighter indicated that whenever the back button was selected the screen reverted back to the main menu page of that section as opposed to previous page.

Overall, warfighters thought the Poliwall with HIPPIE was very useful, reliable system that can be effectively employed to keep networks safe by limiting and prioritizing network traffic without slowing it down. It can potentially be used by many organizations to immediately free up network assets; especially for organizations that are targeted by hostile countries trying to hack in and take out communications links. An outstanding product, PoliWall would make an excellent addition to the Air Force Combat Communication NCC Heavy Package and is highly recommended by the warfighter for fielding.

WARFIGHTER/Operator COMMENTS

“Very interesting and unique product.  I think it is worth looking at more formally.”

“I think it is something that really needs to be looked at because of what it can do in terms of clocking/throttling traffic.”

“It provides a very useful service of securing networks without slowing it down, it is instantaneous and easy to use.”

“The security Poliwall provides is priceless.”

“The ability to be able to block entire countries from accessing your network with one click of the mouse is an awesome aspect of the Poliwall appliance.”
“A great product that addresses a needed capability.”

CONCLUSIONS

Poliwall demonstrated all stated capabilities and supplied a needed capability that enhanced mission operations. It allowed System Administrators to manage network traffic and block Internet traffic originating from countries launching cyber attacks against the network. Poliwall allowed users to see the network traffic being blocked in order to free up network assets for their own use. The Poliwall appliance provided a very useful service of securing, filtering, and prioritizing network traffic. It also provided an easy and effective way to manage access to a network based on country of origin and ensure that network bandwidth remained available to the warfighter. With minimal training and simple implementation, the Poliwall appliance provided a very useful network service. Through the incorporation of VLAN (802.1Q) technology, network protection can be extended to multiple networks within the enterprise. The PoliWall™ Security Appliance with HIPPIE™ Filter Technology was successful in meeting the CWID Objective for Enhancing Government Agency Interoperability by providing solutions that improve the Combatant Commander's ability to conduct collaborative planning with coalition partners, including joint and coalition forces, government agencies, NGOs and first responders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

    *

      Investigate a master/slave configuration where changes made on the console could be replicated to remote Poliwall devices.
    *

      Provide a percentage of bandwidth rather than actual bandwidth used within the live statistics page.
    *

      Change the back button so that it reverts to previous page rather than main menu.
    *

      Adjust titles in live statistics so that when county names are on more than one line they are not overlapping with graph titles.
    *

      Continue developing an integrated black list of known proxy servers and compromised hosts to block that will be transparent to users.

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://www.ncs.gov/about.html

General Enterprise Management (GEM) Model Driven Enterprise Management - MDEM (EM Support) Via Model Driven Architecture (MDA)-M3/M2/M1/M0)

"M2 Enterprise Architecture Business, Data, Application, & Technical Schema
(BEAM, FEA, DoDAF, TOGAF, etc.)
Ontology EA Tools/Repositories (M3/M2/M1/M0)
Agilense WebModeler
Adaptive
CASE EA Tools (M1/M0)
Popkin SA
PTech
Computas Metis
Other"

Power Point Presentation Link (Open the document, and type Ptech in the search field and hit next, to see for yourself.)



Over 45 years ago, an impending national crisis highlighted the critical need for reliable and interoperable telecommunications for the Federal Government. President John F. Kennedy recognized the threat during the Cuban Missile Crisis and, as a result, established the National Communications System.  [INSERT Yeah, but if President John F. Kennedy were alive, & President today, he would have you fired, and arrested for high treason against the Constitution and Bill of Rights for deliberately jeopardizing and providing permanent hijacking capability into United States Communication infrastructure.

Background and History of the NCS

The genesis of the National Communications System (NCS) began in 1962 after the Cuban missile crisis when communications problems among the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and foreign heads of state threatened to complicate the crisis further. After the crisis, President John F. Kennedy ordered an investigation of national security communications, and the National Security Council (NSC) formed an interdepartmental committee to examine the communications networks and institute changes.


This interdepartmental committee recommended the formation of a single unified communications system to serve the President, Department of Defense, diplomatic and intelligence activities, and civilian leaders. Consequently, in order to provide better communications support to critical Government functions during emergencies, President Kennedy established the National Communications System by a Presidential Memorandum on August 21, 1963. The NCS mandate included linking, improving, and extending the communications facilities and components of various Federal agencies, focusing on interconnectivity and survivability.


On April 3, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order (E.O.) 12472 which broadened the NCS' national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) capabilities and superseded President Kennedy's original 1963 memorandum. The NCS expanded from its original six members to an interagency group of 23 Federal departments and agencies, and began coordinating and planning NS/EP telecommunications to support crises and disasters.


With the addition of the Office of the Director, National Intelligence in September 2007, the NCS membership currently stands at 24 members


Each NCS member organization is represented on the NCS through the Committee of Principals (COP) -- and its subordinate Council of Representatives (COR). The COP --formed as a result of Executive Order 12472, provides advice and recommendations to the NCS and the National Security Council through the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board on NS/EP telecommunications and its ties to other critical infrastructures. The NCS also participates in joint industry-Government planning through its work with the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC), with the NCS's National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications (NCC) and the NCC's subordinate Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC).

After nearly 40 years with the Secretary of Defense serving as its Executive Agent, President George W. Bush transferred the National Communications System to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The NCS was one of 22 Federal agencies transferred to the Department on March 1, 2003, in accordance with Executive Order 13286. A revised Executive Order 12472 reflects the changes of E.O. 13286. On November 15, 2005, the NCS became part of the Department's Directorate for Preparedness after nearly two years under the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. Currently, the DHS Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs serves as the NCS Manager.

[Anti_Illuminati]

Danny Casolaro                                         

Source

In August 1991, journalist Danny Casolaro was elated about going to West Virginia to meet a key figure, and possible “icing on the cake” source, before completing the manuscript of what he called “the most explosive investigative story of the 20th Century.” The focus of his year-long probe was the hidden, illicit ownership and use, of the most powerful, secretly intrusive and controlling software on earth.

Three days after his arrival, Casolaro’s body was found in his hotel room bathtub, wrists slashed at least twelve times, to his tendons. The box of documents, notes and phone contacts he’d brought with him was gone.

Before and soon after his death, Court and Congressional findings supported much of his unfinished outline describing a government connected, multi-group subsystem, and its malevolent role in world events at the 20th Century’s end. He’d nicknamed the nexus of this spectral force “The Octopus”.

Numerous direct connections to later events, some with global impact, point to a national story of even greater magnitude in the 21st Century. Whether all its elements can ever be fully known, the clear implications of its already verified disclosures point to what seems the most important current matter, in urgent need of public awareness.

Promis

The core of Casolaro’s project took shape twelve years before his involvement. The US Law Enforcement Assistance Agency (LEAA), funded the development of “next-generation” software for data collection and use. The result was a breakthrough in the creation of “artificial intelligence”, by a National Security Agency non-profit firm named Inslaw.

When the LEAA was phased out in 1980, Inslaw became a for-profit firm, and owners Bill and Nancy Hamilton created an enhanced version of the software program named PROMIS (Prosecutors Management Information System).

The system enabled prosecutors to merge criminal case data from across the nation, to a depth that actually produced valuable new information. It could “virtually” put two and two together and make five. In 1982, the Justice Department signed a $10 million contract with Inslaw for PROMIS’ installation in US Attorneys’ offices. The contract recognized that the enhanced PROMIS features were Inslaw’s property, to be later compensated in good-faith negotiation.

The enhanced PROMIS software was spectacular. It could reveal every minute bit of information throughout any operation with which it made contact. It produced an omniscient blueprint of the host’s innermost workings, down to details never before known possible. Realizing its potential for profit and power, top Justice officials, as later proven, plotted with others to pirate the software for covert use, and to market it commercially themselves.

An untraceable “backdoor” code component was then installed. It provided the ability, via satellite, to covertly transfer, or even alter information, within any system linked to it. Ultimately, entire systems’ content could be secretly replaced by"parallel reality” information, chosen by those in control of the hidden “back door”. This quickly became the ultimate tool/weapon for clandestine intelligence operations, whether legitimate or not. Only those with hidden access to the genuine data have real operational control.

Computer scientists familiar with PROMIS reported its ability to create new paths for its own improvement, potentially increasing its power indefinitely.

Continuously enhanced over the years, all-knowing PROMIS software became the progenitor of the Defense Department’s understandably controversial Total Information Awareness (TIA) program in 2003. It was headed by John Poindexter, former Reagan official convicted in the Iran/Contra scandal. His stated TIA goal was the unlimited collection of US citizen data from all possible sources. Public outrage caused the program’s shutdown one year later, It resurfaced in ’05 under the NSA, jointly with IBM. Poindexter formed a global data-mining firm named Cognitive Edge, headquartered in Singapore.

Back in the early ‘80s, once the Justice officials “got the (enhanced) goods”, as internal memos put it, they refused any negotiations, and simply stopped payments on the Inslaw contract. The Hamiltons’ firm filed for bankruptcy in 1985, then launched a lawsuit against the Justice Department. Despite a decade of Trial and Appeals court decisions in its favor, as well as two Congressional reports calling for Inslaw’s compensation, the company never received a penny. Starting surreptitiously in the early ‘80s however, PROMIS has been illicitly sold to, and imbedded in government, company, organization and agency systems around the world. Estimated dollar sale totals are at least several hundred million.

Ordinary computer users know that the latest intrusion protection is quickly challenged by spammers’ and hackers’ latest innovations. Those involved with military and global finance systems are locked in unending, no holds barred spywar, whether predator and/or prey. Beyond devising improved cyber weapons, and labyrinths of electronic decoys and disinformation, criminal methods and tactics have often included bribery, collusion, threats and homicide.

Cutting edge IT scientists can keep their adversaries guessing and uncertain. However, the total design and ability of a Trojan Horse, such as the original “backdoor” within PROMIS, remains known only to those with full knowledge of its first installation.

US intelligence agencies have surely scored major, legitimate coups with it, though understandably unreported. What is known from voluminous, direct and undisputed circumstantial evidence, is that PROMIS-sired installations have been lynchpins in international financial scandals, domestic political travesties, and US security disasters.

During the twenty year creation of toxic streams formed by organized deceit, and US security trade-offs for personal power and wealth, PROMIS appears as a navigation guide for the forces converging for the cataclysmic attack on US soil, in 2001. One observer of increasing danger of tyranny by technology, pined that “Its not now too late ”, but rather that “It’s always been too late” to avoid the inevitable information monolith. The extent of PROMIS progenies’ centralized control, and by whom, is now somewhat apparent. Its potentially absolute power in the near future, and therefore its consequences, can only be imagined.

A FEW OF THE ORIGINAL MAJOR PLAYERS

Lowell Jensen, the Deputy Attorney General during the contract period, previously owned a company that lost a large contract award to Inslaw.

Madison Brewer, the Justice Department manager of the Inslaw contract, Madison Brewer, once worked for Inslaw, and had been fired.

Edwin Meese, Counselor to President Reagan, secretly invested in a firm that was pressuring (reportedly threatening) Inslaw to sell, owned by a financier (later convict) colleague of Meese. In 1985, Meese became US Attorney General, and secretly tried to get the bankruptcy court to order total liquidation of the Hamiltons’ firm. Meanwhile the rival company he’d invested in, headed by fellow career Reaganite vassal Earl Brian, had begun selling the pirated software around the world.

Earl Brian coordinated the secret modification and marketing of the stolen PROMIS software through his company, named Hadron Inc. Several witnesses and documents identified Brian as a key figure in the 1980 election “October Surprise” Iran hostage outrage. The PROMIS bonanza was reportedly in reward for his services. A skilled political and financial manipulator, Brian eventually gained control of United Press International and the Financial News Network. A decade later he served four years in prison for fraud.

Elliot Richardson was Inslaw’s attorney. His integrity was legendary since, as President Nixon’s Attorney General, he resigned rather than obey Nixon’s order to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor. In the Inslaw case, he eventually called for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, since the Justice Department, as Defendant, had also been in charge of investigating itself. No such independent office was ever created.

George Bason, Federal Bankruptcy Judge, who after refusing to order Inslaw’s liquidation, was the first to rule in its favor, declaring that the Justice Department had used “trickery, fraud and deceit” to steal the PROMIS software. the first to rule in Inslaw’s favor. Following his ruling, of the 142 Federal Bankruptcy Judges up for reappointment that year, he was one of four who were denied. His replacement, in fact, was the lawyer who’d unsuccessfully argued the Justice Department’s case before him.


All this was repeatedly documented in Federal Trial and Appeals Courts, as well as a Congressional Report in 1992

House Committee Investigation

The year after Danny Casolaro died, the House Judiciary Committee confirmed the courts’ Inslaw findings and more. Its report also stated it was “imperative that further investigation be conducted” into the cause of Danny Casolaro’s death. Local West Virginia police had immediately declared it a suicide, without an investigation or full autopsy. His body was embalmed and the room professionally sanitized within 24 hours, though it was 2 ½ days before his family was notified.

It wasn’t till months later that it was revealed Danny had bruises on his arm and head. There’d been blood splashes outside the bathroom and bloody towels neatly folded. Those Danny said had arranged the scheduled meeting weren’t contacted. Nor were his recent incoming and outgoing calls followed up.

All those close to him are certain it wasn’t suicide. He’d been exuberant about actually meeting one of the main subjects of his investigation, and then finalizing the project. He was worried however, about the phone threats, and suspicious about a chance encounter with a stranger, who coincidentally was able to arrange the scheduled meeting with the key PROMIS theft operative. Six months earlier, one of his major inside sources, NSA electronics expert Alan Standorf, had been murdered. He was also well aware of the murders of other insiders trying to expose US security breaches in PROMIS’ distribution.

Nonetheless, Casolaro planned to keep the appointment, though he told his friends that if anything happened to him, not to believe it was an accident.

They didn’t believe the “suicide” claim either. The documents he’d brought to reveal at the meeting were gone, along with his note, address and phone books. None of those whose “Octopus” involvement he’d been openly tracking, none of those he’d been contacting, or planned to meet and confront, none of the records of calls to his home…none of the preliminaries of a thorough investigation had taken place.

Six months later, yielding to his family’s public insistence, a full autopsy was conducted, and suicide was declared “consistent with the cause of death,” namely loss of blood. Other medical examiners stated that little could be learned from a body embalmed six months earlier.

The House Judiciary Committee duly noted the unanswered, indeed never asked, questions about Danny Casolaro’s last days, and intoned the obvious need for further investigation. The report referred to documents, and what it deemed credible sworn testimony, about the people and methods used to perpetuate what it termed “an abuse of power of shameful proportions.” Justice officials, it said, had obstructed the committee’s inquiry, their individual testimony contradicted one another. Government documents were reported lost or destroyed.

As a result, the report said, wrongdoers had been “”shielded from investigation and possible prosecution.” Public confidence and faith in our system of justice had been “undermined by the very agent entrusted with its enforcement.” Further action, it dutifully noted, “was essential to restore that confidence.”

And…

To date, the situation remains as it was in ’92. Inslaw and the Hamiltons still wait for justice denied by the Justice Department. The deepening dust over Danny Casolaro’s brave, but naive dealings with jackboot, black ops outlaws remains undisturbed. Continuously enhanced PROMIS though, keeps coming. Not rough beast but specter. Not slouching but slithering, and actually born in the desert, as it happens.

What Casolaro Learned

At 43 years old, Danny had sold his interest as co-founder of ComputerAge magazine, and was free-lancing for a year before introduced, in 1990. to his first Inslaw/PROMIS source, referred to in his notes, as “Danger Man”.

Michael Riconosciuto, (Michael R.) is a seriously tainted, truth stretching, technology wizard, who became well known among rogue intelligence factions. At age 10 he’d wired his neighborhood with a private phone system, bypassing MaBell. At 16, he was physics lab assistant to Nobel Laureate Arthur Schalow at Stanford. “You just don’t forget a kid who shows up with his own argon laser,” Dr Schalow later remarked.

As a young man in the ‘70s however, Michael R. served two years in prison for manufacturing methamphetamine. Soon after, he entered the schizophrenic world formed by covert agencies and global commerce, where legitimacy is less defined than it is justified, or just not considered. His lucrative expertise, confirmed in Federal Court and Congressional findings, was in the secret creation of communication and weapons technologies.

Throughout the ‘80s, Michael R.’s primary business connection was acknowledged CIA contract agent Robert Booth Philips, who became Casolaro’s second and most constant sounding board, in the weeks before his death.

Vice President of Philips’ Meridian Arms company, Michael R. claimed that by the late ‘80s he regretted, and had become frightened by his life in officially controlled criminal operations. More than one of those he recounted in detail involved Earl Brian, Attorney General Meese’s cohort choice to rake in the PROMIS bonanza.

Michael R. decided his best protection was public disclosure, and in 1990, he contacted Inslaw, saying that he was the one who actually installed the hidden “back door” in PROMIS software. In his sworn Court, and later Congressional testimony, with no other apparent motive, he stated that the project took place at the small Cabazon Indian Reservation, in the desert outside of Indio, California.

Reservations are outside the jurisdiction of regular US law enforcement, and Cabazon was managed by another acknowledged CIA alumnus, non-Indian John Phillip Nichols, (no family relation to Michael R/Meridian Arms’ Robert Booth Nichols).

John Phillip had been bringing in the bucks with Government grants, non-taxed cigarette sales, and one of the first Indian gambling casinos. He also arranged a joint venture with Wackenhut, the nation’s largest security contractor (its board replete with former CIA, NSA and FBI officials), to test experimental and prohibited weapons systems undisturbed.

Michael R’s testimony and documentation, found credible by two Federal Courts, the House Judiciary Committee, and corroborated by other witnesses, stated that:

    * Along with information technology, new secret weapons, including biological and “fuel-air” explosives were developed and tested at Cabazon. Meridian Arms produced the prototypes. Aspects of the Iran/Contra (guns and drugs shipments) were also planned there.
    * Earl Brian, owner of Hadron Inc, marketer of the stolen PROMIS, paid several visits. Though Brian denied ever being there, the local sheriff’s office recorded his presence at a weapons demonstration. In fact, they also identified the person with him as Wayne Reeder, partner of Neil Bush, George W’s brother, in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal. The extent of the 1980s S&L losses were in the $billions and shook the nation’s economy. Many banking conspirators went to jail. Neil Bush admitted his crooked deals and got a $50,000 fine.
    * In 1981, a native Cabazon leader, Fred Alvarez, was shot to death along with two others, when they threatened to expose various criminal activities by the John Phillip-led management. Afterward, a Wackenhut security official named Jimmy Hughes voluntarily went to the local DA, and confessed he’d delivered the money to pay for the murders. He said he’d also been involved with John Phillip in other CIA linked assassinations, but couldn’t take it any longer.

When the case dragged on without any arrests, and he heard he was next to be hit, Jimmy Hughes fled to Guatemala. A reporter for the London Financial Times, Anson Ng, traveled to Guatemala to interview him, and was shot dead there.

Four years later, John Phillip Nichols pled “no contest” to murder “solicitation” charges, and spent eighteen months in jail.

Hughes eventually became a Christian evangelical speaker, identifying himself as a former killer-for-hire, who found salvation in Jesus. There is an extraordinary tape produced in 2008 by Fred Alvarez’ son and the daughter of another victim, in which they track Hughes to an evangelical event in California. After his keynote speaker address, they confront Hughes about the Cabazon murders. The tape can be seen at deseartfae.com.

Several allegations found credible, in Court and Congressional testimony from Michael R, Danny’s “Danger Man” source, were supported by evidence from those with less tainted histories:

    * Ted Gunderson, FBI Senior Agent In Charge Dallas ’73-’77, Los Angeles ’77-’79.
    * Thomas Gates, FBI Special Agent investigating John Phillip Nichols and major drug dealings.
    * Ari Ben-Menasche, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) official ’77-’87 swore that Earl Brian
    * had sold PROMIS to Israel in 1983.
    * Chuck Hayes, Retired Air Force Colonel and CIA officer later submitted an affidavit, that he’d been present when Earl Brian offered PROMIS to the government of Brazil.
    * Letters from the Canadian government, and the CIA itself, each claiming to have purchased PROMIS in the mid ‘80s, from the same company in Cambridge, Mass.(Strategic Software Planning Corp). Information about this company is not readily available.

Casolaro never got to visit the Cabazon Reservation, about which he’d received much, but not all of his information. His body was found the month before he planned to go. The outline for his unfinished work included a partial list of those he believed were the go-to operatives closest to what he called “the head” of the Octopus.

Certain corporate entities, mafia figures, drug cartels, bi-party government kingpins and rogue agency groups were listed as its structural components. He focused on a major hub - Mid-East based, White House connected, global bank fraud BCCI, whose $ 20 billion collapse came just months after Danny’s death. The 1980s VIP money laundry for dictators, terrorist backers, illegal weapons brokers, drug wholesalers, covert CIA and other agencies’ operatives, lost only its innocent depositors’ money, worldwide.

Permitted, often assisted by Reagan/Bush appointees, BCCI was finally prosecuted in 1992 by Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau, who called it the “worst financial scandal in world history.” In the late ‘70s, BCCI also made an American best friend who pulled Democratic Party strings, as well. Arkansas Billionaire Jackson Stephens had graduated from Annapolis with then President Jimmy Carter, and was Bill Clinton’s biggest backer for Governor, on up to President.

Stephens’ company, scheming for years with Carter’s former Budget Director Bert Lance, in 1987 secured a beach head for BCCI in the US banking system. Their straw-man, till the scandal erupted, was Democratic luminary and former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford. Their attorneys were Hillary Clinton and her Arkansas law firm partners. That didn’t stop Stephens, during the same year, from brokering a $25 million bailout for George W. Bush’s failing oil company, the principals of BCCI. Nor did it impede BCCI from being the Reagan-Bush clearing-house for weapons, cash and narcotics in the Iran/Contra operations.

From high risk-taking sources, Casolaro reported he also had evidence linking BCCI to 1980 “October Surprise” payoffs to Iran, and to PROMIS software’s insertion into global banking systems. His last planned meeting, he told friends, was with a culpable government official, to exchange incriminating documents for the full account of PROMIS’ installations.

This official, he told friends, was related to the Chief of Staff of Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va). A bastion of power in both political parties, Byrd, according to witnesses, was part of the deal with Iran, to hold US hostages until after the 1980 election.

The official, Peter Videnieks (Peter V.), had rotated through multiple postings at Customs, the IRS, NASA and the Justice Department. While at Customs he oversaw several contracts with Wackenhut (the CIA/Cabazon combo), and with Hadron Inc., owned by AG Meese cohort Earl Brian. Peter V.’s wife was Senator Byrd’s Chief of Staff.

While at Justice, Peter V, was facilitator of the “deceit, theft and fraud”, as described by Federal Judge George Bason, to steal PROMIS from the Inslaw company, and pass it over to Earl Brian and Hadron Inc. Brian, according to several witnesses, also helped route the payoffs to Iran for holding their US hostages until after the 1980 election. Brian’s assistant at Hadron reported he’d received many calls from PeterV.

According to Casolaro source Micheal R.(sworn creator of PROMIS’ “back door”), Peter V. had phoned and warned him against testifying in the Inslaw v Justice Dept. case. He claimed Peter V. threatened to get him arrested if he went ahead with it. In March 1991 Michael voluntarily submitted his sworn affidavit, and two weeks later he was arrested in connection with a methamphetamine lab operation.. As of June 2008, he remains in prison. Michael R also claimed Peter V. Had visited the Cabazon reservation, though ten years later he could not describe what Peter V. looked like.

Casolaro had been suspicious about a “chance” tavern chat with former Special Forces officer Joseph Cuellar, who just “happened to know” Peter V, and could arrange a meeting. Still, Danny told friends, he couldn’t pass it up. The meeting was set for August 12, 1991, the day after Casolaro’s body was found.

If Danny Had Lived

Whether or not he’d have immediately gone public with what he had, subsequent disclosures and events would have kept him more than busy.

In 1992, the House Judiciary Committee concurred with court rulings that Justice officials and their cohorts stole PROMIS, and started selling it themselves. The report, did not delve into specifically alleged transactions, CIA involvement (rogue or otherwise), BCCI’s possession and criminal uses, or the installation of PROMIS’ omnipotent “back door”. Rather it concluded that further inquiry was necessary.

Later that year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released its report on BCCI’s decade of unimpeded global growth, including US bank ownership in eight states. The Senate report noted BCCI’s US entrance in the ‘80s through Jimmy Carter’s former Budget Director, but didn’t follow the key role played during those years, by billionaire Jackson Stephens, Carter’s former classmate.

Stephens, whose IT firms received national security contracts, raised $millions for Bill Clinton while he was still Governor , and also arranged for BCCI principals to provide a $25 million bailout for one of George W. Bush’s oil companies.

The Senate report listed BCCI business ties with top CIA officials. It described how Agency officials obstructed, and in fact misled Senate investigators about BCCI/CIA dealings. It declared it “incontestable” that BCCI was the Iran/Contra clearing house for cash and weapons trades. It recounted evidence of BCCI’s money laundering for drug cartels and terrorists, as well as tracking its role in nuclear technology theft. Though it stated that BCCI had infiltrated IT systems worldwide, the report did not pursue testimony that BCCI was an early customer, then conduit for the pirated PROMIS software. As did the House report, the Senate report duly called for further investigation.

Danny Casolaro would surely have wanted to pick up where the two government probes left off. He’d already catalogued links between BCCI and PROMIS, BCCI and narcotics/weapons traffic, BCCI and the CIA, FBI and top government officials. He showed friends documents of enormous arms and drug deals profiting CIA, Customs and Wackenhut officials, The interlocked structure of these ongoing operations, formed a main part of the dark image Danny had named “The Octopus”.

Much, though not all, of what amoral tech wizard Michael R told Danny was supported by others or documents. He warned that his former partner, CIA operative Robert Booth Nichols, was extremely dangerous, and Danny found good reason to believe him. Nichols himself had told Danny about his often lethal career in the CIA, and Danny told of Nichols once threatening to kill a man, over some perceived disrespect in a bar.

Nichols’ Meridian Arms was the covert weapons contractor at the Cabazon reservation where three would-be whistleblowers were murdered. One of its Directors was Eugene Giaquinto, who the FBI charged with funneling money for the Mafia. He was also on the Board of another Nichols company named FIDCO, comprised of highest level CIA contractors, the Reagan White House Counsel, the CEO of the Howard Hughes empire, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, and a reputed Yakuza boss.

FIDCO had a US-backed contract for the rebuilding of war-torn Beirut, and Michael R, later supported by DIA agent Lester Coleman and FBI agent Thomas Hayes, testified that FIDCO also fronted for $ billions of CIA, Iran/Contra and BCCI cash, covert IT and protected heroin transactions, through FIDCO’s hub in Cyprus. Just weeks before Danny’s death, Michael R told him that the green light for certain global drug operations came from the Justice Department’s Director of International Affairs, a man named Mike Abbell.

It had become Danny’s habit to call Nichols after hearing from Michael R, and “bounce off him” whatever new information Michael R had claimed. Though he realized the danger, Danny enjoyed talking with the debonair Nichols, a charismatic “Clark Gable” type, who tantalized with partially told tales of his lurid adventures. He’d befriended actor Stephen Seagall, and actually tried selling a movie script version of his frightening career. He reportedly has a bit part in Seagall’s movie “Under Siege”.

Nichols had also warned Danny about some of the people he was looking into, including another Justice official, PROMIS theft enabler Peter Videnieks (Peter V). However, Danny told friends, when he asked about Michael Abbell, Nichols was furious. His explosive tirade ended by flatly stating “If you continue you will die”. Friends said Danny never lost a teenager’s sense of immortality. He continued openly relaying the latest incriminating evidence he had about those he believed were operatives of the “Octopus”. He blithely sent word that he’d meet with any one of them, perhaps trade some documents for information on the extent of PROMIS globally.

Danny said he’d arranged just such a meeting for the week after Robert Booth Nichol’s mortal warning. In fact, it was with Abbell’s former colleague at Justice, Peter V. Danny’s body was found the morning before the scheduled meeting. Four years later Mike Abbell was indicted. The former Justice Department Director of International Affairs, who, as rogue-genius Michael R had told Danny, acted as traffic guard for protected narcotics deals, was convicted as the consigliere for the Cali cocaine cartel. He received a seven year jail sentence

Since Danny’s death in 1991, there have been numerous disclosures of government officials’ involvement in large-scale drug traffic. Opium from the Mid East, cocaine from South America, most often CIA connected, throughout both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

PROMIS software has turned up in connection with illegal global enterprises including drugs, weapons and money laundering. By the end of the century, there was undisputed evidence that it had been sold to, or stolen by more than one hundred national governments, criminal cartels and militant groups. At first a super-tool for US intelligence agencies, it soon became a, if not the, key weapon in world-changing espionage against the United States.

For Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential campaign, through Arkansas billionaire Jackson Stephens, he accepted $millions in loans (never repaid) from the Lippo Group conglomerate, in partnership with the Chinese government. Stephens had also arranged a multi-$million bailout for George W. Bush’s failing oil ventures. Stephens’ company, named Systematics, already held classified software contracts (PROMIS originated) with the National Security Agency.

Through his first term, the US-China trade imbalance grew from $11 to $52 billion, and starting mid-term, Clinton unilaterally gifted China with cutting-edge information and defense technology, ignoring alarmed protests by the Pentagon and Congress. In 1994 he installed a China-partnered Lippo official, John Huang, as Deputy Secretary of Commerce, with top security clearance. Huang, it was later learned, met regularly with Chinese officials, while raising $millions for Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign. More than half the money was later traced to illegal foreign sources, mainly China.

During that same period, as reported by the 1998 House Committee on National Security, China was able to hack into the nation’s most vital, classified information systems. With unprecedented success, Chinese software spies repeatedly breached the IT safeguards at defense, intelligence, space and nuclear weapons facilities. There was no official attempt to explain how the nation’s most advanced, top-secret technologies were so easily accessed and stolen. It was as if the intruders knew of some “back door” means of entry.

Also unexplained, was why the top White House, Defense and Security officials all testified they’d been briefed about the massive and continuing electronic espionage, but each of them thought someone else had told the President. Clinton concurred, saying he was sorry he wasn’t informed of these national security disasters. No mention from anyone, not once, in two years.

Even less known, from its startup in 1994, is the horrific history of a small, software company near Boston, named Ptech. It was funded by several Mid East billionaire bankers, including those who’d controlled the criminal conglomerate BCCI. Most notably was BCCI principal Sheikh Khalid Mahfouz. He was also personal banker for the Saudi royals, and partner of Clinton top contributor /George W oil company savior, Jackson Stephens.

The newborn Ptech, for reasons not only unexplained, but effectively never asked, was contracted to manage information technology for the US government’s most sensitive systems. Included was top-secret software control of Defense, Energy, Justice, Commerce, Transportation, Intelligence, and the White House itself.

Several related facts, which if presented as fiction, would not seem believable.

Ptech ‘s principal owner, Yassin Al-Qadi, was known as one of Osama Bin Laden’s main financiers. Beginning in 1996, the FBI’s Bin Laden Unit Chief, Robert Wright, presented evidence of al-Qadi and his associates’ use of charity fronts, to directly fund Al Qaeda. Justice Department top officials denied his repeated requests to arrest al Qadi and warned him to back off the case.

Instead, al Qadi’s small company was chosen to create the FAA’s new National Airspace System, which was completed, praised by quasi government agency Mitre, and in operational control on 911.

Ptech’s IT Chief was Felix Rausch, formerly INTERPOL’s IT Chief, and also Deputy IT Chief at the White House.
________________________________________________________________________
[INSERT:  NAS Information Architecture Committee EXECUTIVE REPORT]
                     http://www.faa.gov/niac/pdf/confexec.pdf


                                                                              
2.0   CONFERENCE OVERVIEW                   
 
Section 2 provides an overview of the major events, speeches, and presentations from the 2-day conference. Subsection 2.1 presents the major events and speeches from the general session.  Subsection 2.2 presents an overview of the key interoperability questions addressed in the six parallel work group sessions, the methodology used in the work groups, and an overview of the major outcomes of each of the six work groups.
 
2.1

General Session

Andy J. Taylor, AUA-500 and member of the NIAC and its Conference Planning Committee emceed the overall conference.  During the general session, a series of speakers/support letters provided the conference attendees with background information on the conference theme of "Achieving Interoperability with a NAS Common Data Architecture."  The selected speakers who could not attend, due to other pressing commitments, sent letters of support which were included in the participant’s conference folders, and excerpts of the letters were read at the general session.

The series and sequence of speakers/support letters were as follows:

•   Felix Rausch, NIAC Co-Chair and NAS Information Architecture “Product Lead”
•   Letter from Jane Garvey, FAA Administrator
•   Letter from Ron Morgan, ATS-1, Acting Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services
•   Keynote address by Dr. Anne Harlan, ACT-1, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center
•   Dr. John Scardina, ASD-2
•   Speech by Stan Rivers, AAF-1 given by Thomas Gassert, AOP-1
•   Hartmut Koelman, EuroControl, Air Traffic Management (ATM) Expert
•   Marc Bourgois, EuroControl, Architecture Expert
•   Dr. Eberhardt Rechtin, Internationally Renowned Systems Architect

These general session speakers/support letters provided participants with common, basic information on the task of achieving a common data architecture.  Highlights of the themes stressed in each speech/support letter are presented on the following pages.  The full texts of the presentations/speeches/support letters are on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac) and can be downloaded.

Felix Rausch, NIAC Co-Chair and NAS Information Architecture “Product Lead”

•   We are all in this together and must synergize energies.
•   Every manager briefed agreed that this is a good idea.
•   We live in the age of information, hardware became a commodity and there are
new rules of operating in a knowledge society.
•   No one can do an excellent, cost-effective job by themselves, dependency is
universal.
•   Optimizing each system sub-optimizes the whole NAS.
•   Sharing information globally will be the basis for Free Flight.
•   Sharing information presupposes common interpretation of information otherwise
too much is lost in translation ($, meaning, time, and safety).
•   We don’t have $ and time to waste on duplications to ensure safety.
•   The NAS Information Architecture is...
-   The integration factor within the overall NAS Architecture FOR ITS
INTERFACES.
-   The way to address and solve the basic NAS information exchange
problem.
-   The common denominator that can fundamentally integrate the flow of
information across NAS interfaces.
-   The vehicle that allows us to stop mortgaging our future as we change the NAS
into an Information System.
•   Participants at this conference can contribute by actively engaging in the sessions
with your knowledge and ideas and asking questions such as:
-   How do we break the cycle of creating new data, database, translator and LAN
fiefdoms?
-   How do we assure better sharing of data within the FAA and with our
NAS users?
-   Can we change the way we do business by defining the problem better up
front?
-   How can we reduce information management costs in the future so we can
reapply the savings to keeping the NAS state-of-the-art.


NAS-wide INFORMATION SYSTEM (NIS) PERFORMANCE
How do we ensure that NAS-wide information services will meet performance requirements for data availability, timeliness, latency, backup and recovery, and redundancy?

A comprehensive plan of action identifying interoperability issues and strategies to overcome these issues was produced by each of the six work groups.  The full, unedited PowerPoint Slide presentations of each work group are provided on the NIAC web page (http://www.faa.gov/niac) and can be downloaded.

Session Leaders, familiar with the subject matter, let each of the work group sessions. FAA Facilitators assisted the Session Leaders in assuring that work group session discussions remained focused, mechanics ran smoothly, and that “the rules” of proper conference procedure were followed.

2.3

Closing General Session

After each of the six work groups made their presentation to the full conference, Felix Rausch, Co-Chair of the NIAC summarized the achievements of the two-day conference as follows:

•   Let’s not lose the momentum.
•   We have harnessed positive energy, how do we retain it for the near future to accomplish the actionable items?
•   How do we get the Administrator to take notice about what we have done, so as to make our job easier have a greater chance for success?

Mr. Rausch invited all participants to continue to contribute the NIAC effort by attending NIAC monthly meetings and actively participating in NIAC subcommittees.  All conference registrants, whether or not they were able to attend the conference, will be e-mailed the Conference Proceedings Executive Report in May 1998.  Mr. Rausch also mentioned that all speeches, support letters, and slide presentations from the general session and the work group presentations will be posted on the NIAC web page
(http://www.faa.gov/niac).

Mr. Rausch thanked the entire group for their active participation and gave a special recognition to the FAA Facilitators who did an excellent job of making the work groups extremely productive in such a short time.
________________________________________________________________________

It wasn’t until the WTC buildings came down that Yassin al Qadi was declared a Specially Designated Global Terrorist( SDGT). Since then a fugitive from US justice, he’s reportedly living in Saudia Arabia. Agent Wright never did back off, and after 911 he publicly charged that that the Justice Department had long-shielded Saudis from terror-finance investigations. He was fired in 2006

Another Senior FBI Agent, Robert Hanssen, was a high level counter-intelligence chief until February 2001, when he was arrested and later found guilty of espionage. For fifteen years he’d reportedly sold critical security information to the Russians, including the FBI’s very own PROMIS software version, data and “back door “ instructions included.

An IT expert, Hanssen in 1984-5 was actually among those who installed the Bureau’s new data system (later learned to be enhanced PROMIS), and so was one of the few who knew its original codes. Perhaps justifying his own treason, Hanssen’s memos from the ‘90s condemn the Clinton White House for ignoring China’s massive IT espionage at US nuclear labs.

Four months after Hanssen’s arrest, but still three months before September 2001, the Washington Times and Fox News Network quoted counter-intelligence officials saying that Bin Laden had also purchased PROMIS software on the black market.

Nonetheless, one of Bin Laden’s major donors, Yassin al Qadi, continued to own the small software company in charge of the US Government’s top-secret IT security systems. It had been three years since the FBI’s Bin Laden-Unit Chief, Robert Wright, presented the direct evidence to arrest al Qadi. Instead, the Clinton Justice Department had warned him to “leave it alone”, and sought to crush him when he refused.

Glaring questions remain unanswered, and obviously conflicting information remains unresolved, among much more, about how our most vital technology was so available and easily used to effect a disaster in our country.

As of late 2007, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, who’d spearheaded PROMIS’ theft and profiteering, was still a political functionary. Along the way, he’d headed a pornography study commission, been director on various corporate and conservative foundation boards, and in 2006 was appointed by George W. to the Iraq Study Group, advising on which US companies should get the contracts to rebuild Iraq.

Also in 2007, Peter Videnieks (Peter V) the government official who Danny Casolaro had told friends he was scheduled to meet, the day after his body was found, was appointed Board Director of the Government’s US-China Commission. Peter V, the go-to official coninuously rotated to handle favored contracts for Justice, Customs, NASA and the IRS, was named personally by Federal Judge George Bason as the operative who fraudulently “converted and stole” PROMIS” software from its rightful owners, Inslaw.

Customs’ Internal Affairs Special Agent Scott Lawrence had spent two and a half years investigating Videnieks role in the illegal distribution of PROMIS, and whether he’d perjured himself during the Inslaw trials. Lawrence’s Supervisor, John Kelly, called for the convening of multiple Grand Juriies, but the Customs Department dropped the probe in 1993, explaining that Peter V had been transferred, again, from the Department, and so was no longer its concern.

Peter V’s official bio is sketchy from ’93 through ’06, besides staff positions on two US Trade and Economic Review Committees. Announcing his Board Appointment in January 2007, the powerful US China Commission listed Peter V as former staffer of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa). Actually, that’s where Videnieks’ wife was Chief of Staff in 1991. Its also where Danny Casolaro told friends he was about to meet with a key staffer’s relative, to trade information about “the most explosive story of the 20th Century”.

[uwaf]

Okay, now I'm confused. Lots to read.

[Unintelligable Name]

Okay, now I'm confused. Lots to read.

I'm still asking "What cyber attack? I didn't hear of any cyber attack."

[Dig]

I'm still asking "What cyber attack? I didn't hear of any cyber attack."

That is like saying "what plane crash" a month before 9/11.

Have you seen:

1) how easily a cyber attack could occur?

2) how they have justified the need for false flag attacks?

3) how they are preparing for a false flag?

4) the people behind the prepared false flag?

5) the uncompromized network which is totally immune to the attacks (in other words, we can already defend against it, but they want the false flag to occur)?

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://www.boozallen.com/consulting-services/modeling-simulation

Modeling and Simulation
Modeling and Simulation Experts

    * Mark Gerencser
    * Mark Herman
    * Bill Thoet

Booz Allen Hamilton’s modeling and simulation service offering allows leaders to solve the most difficult problems, test courses of action, and learn the probable outcomes of strategies. As a recognized leader in decision analytics, we help clients address their toughest problems with analytical approaches, customized tools, data sets, and simulation models that are specifically crafted to create, analyze, and test strategies and decisions. This effort enables our clients to make critical tactical and strategic decisions, supported by auditable quantitative and qualitative techniques, integrating science and technology with human perspectives. The offering is most appropriate when problems are complex, involving numerous stakeholders, interrelated systems, or alternative courses of actions.

Booz Allen helps our clients use modeling and simulation to explore and understand complex strategic and design decisions before investing significant resources in a transformation. Using a widerange of analytical tools and techniques from the commercial gaming industry and the defense modeling community, we are able to assess first and second-order effects on people, process, and technology. These approaches have proven extremely valuable to our US Government clients in public sector markets.

We have been the foremost provider of military wargames to the Department of Defense for more than two decades. In our civil government markets, we have supported the development of strategies to not only combat the HIV epidemics in Asia and Africa but also counter pandemic attacks and other terrorist incidents in North America. For our military clients, we have supported the development and testing of investment strategies, plans for response to military threats, and plans to counter international narcotics operations.
Booz Allen offers world-class expertise in the following areas:

    *
      Modeling and Simulation: We help clients understand the interaction and outcome of reasonably well-defined variables and processes (e.g., system dynamics; economic, social, or cultural interactions). We also test and visualize emerging concepts and capabilities in various traditional and irregular scenarios, and we support planning and assessment efforts in direct support of warfighters from the tactical to the strategic levels.
    *
      Wargaming: We offer clients an opportunity to test strategies in a realistic context of competitors, customers, stakeholders, regulators, and other external interests. Wargaming is most appropriate when limited data is available regarding stakeholder positions and every decision may create a new dynamic of choice by other decision-makers. Wargames may help military, civilian, intelligence, and business leaders avoid surprises on the battlefield or in the market, identify common ground among diverse stakeholders, and build private-public partnerships. In addition, wargaming helps in determining requirements; formulating problems definition; and providing a basis for further refined decision support analyses.
    *
      Capabilities-Based Analysis: We provide technical, programmatic, and performance analysis of integrated C4ISR systems and architectures. Thus, we can help clients identify capability needs; identify gaps or overlaps in systems; evaluate system alternatives against stakeholder criteria; evaluate current and planned investments against needed capabilities; and develop plans and roadmaps for goal attainment.
    *
      Threat and Vulnerability Analysis: We generate quantitative and qualitative insights to help organizations better understand existing and emerging threats, vulnerabilities, and opportunities; enable clients to examine their operating environment (physical and non-physical networks) to identify critical nodes, key relationships, redundancies, and vulnerabilities; examine alternative futures to better understand impacts that decisions made today have in the context of the future; and employ data mining and computational social sciences to support strategic business decisions.

Additional Information

    *
      Booz Allen Is Selected Among the Prime Contractors for DHS EAGLE
    *
      Disaster Relief—Improving Response and Long-Term Recovery
    *
      Modeling the Chaos of Battle
    *
      Patient Safety Mini-Wargame Calls for Greater Collaboration Across Health Disciplines
    *
      Playing Games and Taking Risks to Improve IT Strategy
    *
      Scenario-Based Exercises Help Prepare Eastern North Carolina for Dramatic Regional Growth
    *
      The Global AIDS Crisis—A Strategic Simulation to Explore Public/Private Partnerships in the Fight Against HIV/AIDS
    *
      The Greater Gulf of Guinea Simulation
    *
      Threats to Port Security Call for Integrated Public/Private Action
    *
      US Army Awards Booz Allen $32.7 Million for Future Warfare Study and Wargaming Support
    *
      Wargaming Expert Explores the Roots of Organized Warfare
    *
      Wargaming: Exploring the Future of Defense
    *
      Wargaming for Leaders: Strategic Decision Making from the Battlefield to the Boardroom – a book by Mark Herman, Mark Frost, and Robert Kurz about  Booz Allen-designed wargames

[Freeski]

I've been pouring through this for a bit now and wanted to toss this out - even though it may be covered already.

The link to Ruppert's claims and PROMIS (Prosecutor's Management Information System), and the whole simulation aspect of this - along with the back doors - reminded me about a personal chat I had with none other than Glen Kealey a while back. His contention/theory was that Hewlett Packard (HP) -- a company that doesn't seem to come up in this as of yet -- managed the "remote control" of the 9/11 planes. I'm just the messenger but it is extra interesting because there's another link between DynCorp, HP Canada and some purportedly 'compromised' RCMP systems.

I'm posting this mainly for my own reference but who knows, it might trigger something for someone else.

HP Scandal Raises Questions About The Twilight World Of Corporate Intelligence
While executives and directors need to investigate inside wrongdoing, advanced technology is making it much more tempting to cross ethical and legal boundaries.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193401541
By Sharon Gaudin
InformationWeek
October 24, 2006 08:32 AM

With Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) insiders facing fraud and conspiracy charges, a spotlight is shining on the shady world of corporate intelligence.

[Mike Philbin]

just been listening to a radio show called NOW THAT'S WEIRD (hails out of Glastonbury in UK) and some CFR guy Donald Ware was saying how re: UFOs and Disclosure, Booz Allen were involved in THE ARRIVAL OF THE ALIENS, yes, in their UFOs.

I suspect some huge DISINFORMATION story is gonna soon make its way out into the public domain...   maybe an alien virus!

Oh dear, the opposite of War of the Worlds where our contact with the first aliens kills 80% of us and the Georgia Guidestoners can chuckle all the way to Nirvana.

 

[Freeski]

just been listening to a radio show called NOW THAT'S WEIRD (hails out of Glastonbury in UK) and some CFR guy Donald Ware was saying how re: UFOs and Disclosure, Booz Allen were involved in THE ARRIVAL OF THE ALIENS, yes, in their UFOs.

I suspect some huge DISINFORMATION story is gonna soon make its way out into the public domain...   maybe an alien virus!

Oh dear, the opposite of War of the Worlds where our contact with the first aliens kills 80% of us and the Georgia Guidestoners can chuckle all the way to Nirvana.

 

Interesting angle because TPTB are recently pimping the new NASA mission that might uncover alien life, similar planets and all that jazz.

[Mike Philbin]

Apparently, the generally-vocal radio host of NowThat'sWeird, interviewing this CFR guy at the UFO Congress (just held in Nevada), was 'advised' to steer clear of the Gary McKinnon issue. Now, we all know that Gary was hacked into low-security sites that led to NASA looking for UFO imagery, where he alegedly found doctored images of UFOs and such. Or was he? If what A.I. is saying is true, and they can withstand any attack what is the purpose of Gary McKinnon? Victim? Accomplice?

Does this suggest McKinnon's a part of the whole 'REVELATION: there's an alien virus on our planet' so that the alien hoax can be sowed into our Carbon Tax culture?

Man, these guys are cocky.

[lordssyndicate]

Apparently, the generally-vocal radio host of NowThat'sWeird, interviewing this CFR guy at the UFO Congress (just held in Nevada), was 'advised' to steer clear of the Gary McKinnon issue. Now, we all know that Gary was hacked into low-security sites that led to NASA looking for UFO imagery, where he alegedly found doctored images of UFOs and such. Or was he? If what A.I. is saying is true, and they can withstand any attack what is the purpose of Gary McKinnon? Victim? Accomplice?

Does this suggest McKinnon's a part of the whole 'REVELATION: there's an alien virus on our planet' so that the alien hoax can be sowed into our Carbon Tax culture?

Man, these guys are cocky.

They need to help promote the goals of project bluebeam ....  So that they can help promote the concept of an ET /UFO false flag .....


Think ID4 ... But with the government pulling the strings and all the aliens are hollywierd costumed actors and The "Aliens they manage to Capture" are all just gmo fakes ...

Everything they do always has a tie in to help proliferate their "Virus " which is in essence the NWO... This is how it's all connected ... it's all designed to help further everything just a little bit while focusing each project on achieving the placement of another piece of their master puzzle ...

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://gcn.com/Articles/2009/02/18/Black-Hat-Federal-Kurtz.aspx

U.S. must craft cyberwarfare battle strategy

America has to face up to the realities of cyberwarfare with tactical and strategic planning, Kurtz says

    * By William Jackson
    * Feb 18, 2009

The intelligence community and the military have crucial roles to play in protecting cyber space, former presidential adviser Paul E. Kurtz said Wednesday, and a clear command and control structure is needed to ensure that our information infrastructure can survive and recover from major disruptions.

In his opening address at the Black Hat Federal security conference being held in Arlington, Va., Kurtz, who served on the National and Homeland Security councils under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said the nation has been reluctant to consider the proper role of government in regulating and defending cyberspace. He said it is important that these decisions be made openly after public discussion rather than allowed to happen behind closed doors.

“To those who object to the militarization of cyberspace, I would say, it’s too late: We’re already there,” Kurtz said.

Kurtz, who recently served as cybersecurity adviser on President Barack Obama’s transition team, steered clear of discussing his advice to the new administration. But he praised the 60-day review of federal cybersecurity initiatives announced by the president on Feb. 9 and called Melissa Hathaway, the Bush administration official tapped to conduct it, “exceptionally capable.”

He said the United States should apply some of the lessons learned during the Cold War to cyber conflicts now simmering online. Cyber warfare is not as simple as the bipolar confrontation between the Western democracies and the Soviet bloc, Kurtz said. It is multilateral standoff involving multiple nations, shadowy organizations, and individual hackers and criminals.

“But I do think a number of concepts from the Cold War may apply, and one of these is deterrence,” he added.

A clear policy of deterrence by the United States and its allies helped to avoid the use of nuclear weapons. But no similar policy has been established for battles fought over networks. There is no definition of cyberwarfare, no policy on how and when cyber weapons should be deployed and used, and we do not have a clear idea of who our enemies are.

“We must begin by addressing the question of attribution,” Kurtz said. The ability to collect, share and analyze data in order to tailor responses to a threat is “the beginning of a deterrence policy.”

That ability will require the efforts of the intelligence community, in cooperation with law enforcement and the private sector, he said. Each of these sectors now collects large amounts of data, but the same inability to share and “connect the dots” that led to the 2001 terrorist attacks still plague our cybersecurity, he said.

“There is a reluctance to play ball with the intelligence community,” Kurtz said. This is partly because of the federal government’s unwillingness to share its data with others. Policies are needed to enable and encourage [information/data] sharing, with proper government oversight to ensure privacy and civil liberties are not violated, he said. He envisioned a cyber security fusion center that would incorporate the capability of existing organization such as the Homeland Security Department and National Security Agency, without replacing them. Such a center would be able not only to collect and analyze data, but also to control responses.

These polices need to be extended to other countries, and clear command and control structures set up to guide the government’s response to advanced and persistent attacks that pose a threat to our infrastructure. Such policies and controls for the use of cyber weapons could help avoid the escalation of conflict with the use of physical weapons, Kurtz said.

The country has yet to adequately address how the nation would respond to a serious disruption of the Internet.

“I am exceptionally concerned about 'cyber-Katrina,' ” he said, referring to the botched federal response to the 2005 hurricane. “Is there a FEMA for the Internet? No. Who would be in charge of restoring the infrastructure? We don’t have an answer for that today.”

He said he would like to see a triumvirate of the Homeland Security and Defense departments and the Federal Communications Commission assume this task, with help from other agencies as needed. But more important than coming up with final answers to such questions is beginning a public discussion so the answers can be arrived at transparently and with proper oversight, he added.
______________________________________________________

MILITARY OPERATIONS RESEARCH SOCIETY
Operations Analysis Support to Network Centric Operations
http://www.mors.org/publications/reports/2004-Operations_Analysis_Support_to_NCO.pdf

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 (Source)
Pentagon to Release Official Account of 9/11 w/Book Signing at BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
Note: Booz Allen Hamilton is among the actual core conspirators in the 9/11 mass killings. Others include NSA, CIA, Mantech, CSC, AT&T, SAIC, Raytheon, CSIS, and Affiliated Computer Services. Mass privatization of government (and its secrets) was the key objective, and that's why military-industrial contractors were so heavily represented in the 9/11 covert operation, sold to U.S. proles as an attack by Islamic berserkers motivated by a freedom phobia - ie., the unlikeliest explanation in the world ... - AC

Book Signing: Pentagon 9/11

Fairfax Times
By rogers_jennifer@bah.com

On Friday, May 9, from 4 - 6 p.m., Booz Allen Hamilton will host a presentation and book signing for employees at its McLean headquarters in honor of the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon. The attack on the Pentagon resulted in the death of three Booz Allen Hamilton employees who were in the building. Dr. Sarandis (Randy) Papadopoulos is the featured speaker and principal co-author of Pentagon 9/11, the Defense Department’s recently published official account of the attack on the Pentagon.

Dr. Papadopoulos was assigned by the Naval Historical Center as lead author for the book. Booz Allen Senior Associate Gary Hall and Associate Kathleen Wright, both naval reservists, were recalled to active duty along with several other members of their reserve unit, and worked closely with Dr. Papadopoulos in conducting interviews of survivors and rescuers from the attack. These interviews, and interviews provided by the Army historian, served as the basis for the book.

This event is sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton’s Armed Services and African American Forums. For more information, contact George Farrar at farrar_george@bah.com.

Sarandis (Randy) Papadopoulos earned his B.A. at the University of Toronto, M.A. from the University of Alabama, and received his Ph.D. from the George Washington University. At GWU his dissertation was entitled Feeding the Sharks: The Logistics of Undersea Warfare, 1935-1945, a work comparing the German and U.S. submarine services. Between 1999 and 2007 he has been a Lecturer in History at the George Washington University and the University of Maryland, College Park. He joined the Contemporary History Branch, of the U.S. Naval Historical Center, in June 2000. There he has served as a principal co-author of Pentagon, 9/11, written under the sponsorship of the Historian, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also a co-author contributing to a project examining combined naval operations since 1991, Papadopoulos has entries in several reference works and ten book reviews for a variety of journals, is the Region III Coordinator for the Society for Military History and a Trustee of the U.S. Commission of Military History.

About Booz Allen

Booz Allen Hamilton has been at the forefront of management consulting for businesses and governments for more than 90 years. Providing consulting services in strategy, operations, organization and strategy, and information technology, Booz Allen is the one firm that helps clients solve their toughest problems, working by their side to help them achieve their missions. Booz Allen is committed to delivering results that endure.

With 19,000 employees on six continents, the firm generates annual sales of $4 billion. Booz Allen has been recognized as a consultant and an employer of choice. In 2008, for the fourth consecutive year, Fortune magazine named Booz Allen one of “The 100 Best Companies to Work For,” and for the past nine years, Working Mother has ranked the firm among its “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers.”

To learn more about the firm, visit the Booz Allen Web site at www.boozallen.com. To learn more about the best ideas in business, visit www.strategy-business.com, the Web site for strategy+business, a quarterly journal sponsored by Booz Allen.

http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/newsbyyou/167/
Posted by Alex Constantine at 8:07 PM ________________________________________________________________________
Saturday, July 12, 2008 (Source
Private Property Seizures: Booz, Allen & Hamilton, the Army's Accomplice in Southeast Colorado
Deanna Spingola
July 11, 2008

Booz, Allen & Hamilton (hereafter Booz Allen), a privately held corporation owned by about 300 senior executives, is the Army's accomplice in their attempted private property seizure in southeast Colorado. Their expertise, they declare, is strategy and public sector mission effectiveness.

Booz Allen contracted with the Army for $500,000 to maneuver the ranchers out of their property rights. Skillful facilitators (provocateurs), despite their friendly demeanor, very likely use an advanced version of the deceptive Delphi Method, mind-games developed by the U.S. Air Force's RAND Project, financed by the Ford Foundation. Project RAND became the "premier think tank" and "purveyor of American imperialism" and facilitated the Cold War façade. Their activities contributed to the exponential growth of the military-industrial complex. RAND encouraged numerous U.S.-backed military dictatorships in third world countries. [1]

Booz Allen's professional provocateurs use psychologically-designed surveys in an alleged attempt to "gather opinions." In the Delphi technique, these activities are a subtle persuasion tactic to manipulate target groups into "accepting predetermined government policies" while giving the impression of being concerned and accountable to private needs. [2] If the first survey is unsuccessful, another survey requests that the respondents attempt to be more flexible in their answers. "When the series of surveys are accomplished, the respondents are told that the majority of respondents achieved a 'consensus' with whatever direction the pollers wanted in the first place." [3]

The same cast of politically-connected characters, with a determined agenda, functions in think tanks, as corporate heads and in government positions. Former trustees and/or researchers for RAND include: Donald Rumsfeld (1977-2001), Condoleezza Rice (1991-1997), Francis Fukuyama (1979-1980, 1983-1989), and Zalmay Khalilzad. [4] Rumsfeld was Chairman of RAND Corporation from 1981–1986. RAND "invented the theories that led two administrations to military escalation against North Vietnam." [5]

Booz Allen knows the financial/credit history, computer key-strokes, personality traits, political affiliations, friends, associates, medical issues, weaknesses and strengths of every single southeast Colorado rancher and will use that information for the army's objective — the seizure of private land. Their surveys, meetings, polls are a façade — citizen's input is irrelevant. For additional pressure, the Army claims they have a "willing seller" with 100,000 acres, perhaps a newly-arrived non-rancher strategically-placed in order to influence and alter the balance of opinions.

By 2006, the company had a global staff of 18,000 in thirty countries on six continents from more than one hundred offices with annual revenues of $3.7 billion. [6] Booz Allen has two divisions — commercial (based in New York) and government (based in McLean). More than 50 percent of Booz Allen's business consists of U.S. government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They are a "key adviser and prime contractor to all of the major U.S. intelligence agencies — the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the National Security Agency (NSA), the ultra-secret agency and the world's leading espionage organization ,[7] — as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Defense and most of the Pentagon's combatant commands." Many of Booz Allen's 300 vice presidents exploit the government/corporate revolving door of shared personnel. [8] See company profiles.

Booz Allen business dealings are revealing. On May 16, 2008, Booz Allen announced the sale of the majority of its U.S. government business division to the Carlyle Group (established 1987), a multibillion dollar private equity firm (no obligation to divulge financial data) for $2.54 billion, expected to be complete by mid-late 2008, "subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions." [9] Carlyle Group has had "investments with the Bin Laden family, and some extensive investments in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East." [10] In September 2007, the Mubadala Development Company, a sovereign wealth fund of the government of Abu Dhabi specializing in acquisitions, paid 1.35 billion for a 7.5% ownership stake in Carlyle. [11] The politically-connected, bi-partisan, buyout firm, Carlyle Group, stacked with former politicians/war profiteers ,[12] has massive assets.

George H. W. Bush joined Carlyle in 1993 and was the Senior Advisor to their Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003. He resigned under pressure due to the company's massive Iraqi war profits. He retained his Carlyle stock and gave speeches on Carlyle's behalf for a $500,000 fee. Carlyle is notorious for buying defense companies and "doubling or tripling their value" due to abundant, frequently no-bid, defense contracts. In 2002, Carlyle "received $677 million in government contracts," and by Bush's 2003 Iraqi invasion, Carlyle contracts were worth $2.1 billion, netting sizeable profits for the investors — friends and family. [13]

Notables associated with Carlyle include: James Baker III, former U.S. Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush, Staff member under George W. Bush; Frank C. Carlucci, Deputy Director of the CIA under Jimmy Carter; Richard Darman, former Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George H. W. Bush; Randal K. Quarles, former Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under George W. Bush; Allan Gotlieb, Canadian ambassador to the United States; William Kennard, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Bill Clinton; Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Bill Clinton; Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates and many others. [14]

From 1992-2000, numerous Bill Clinton scandals distracted the population which enabled politically-connected oil companies to seize complete control of the government. Oil oligarchy ownership of Congress precluded conviction of the perjured president, also applicable to future officials/criminals who would continue the privatization of government and asset seizure, including foreign and domestic land. [15] After 9/11, the take-over, using no-bid contracts and privatization, leaped forward. The war on terror, the creation of numerous new agencies and bureaucrats (to protect us) was never about freedom or security. All of it, the programs, the proposed PCMS expansion and Iraq reconstruction are all a colossal assault on the federal budget, facilitated by the government, using politically-connected, selectively efficient contractors who collect up-front who then frequently, depending on location and importance, sub-contract projects to unskilled workers who frequently never complete the work.

FEMA, a DHS agency, has outsourced (privatized) disaster and hurricane recovery planning to the politically-connected companies like Acquisition Solutions, Ashbritt and Innovative Emergency Management (IEM), founded in 1985. IEM partners with Booz Allen and Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 contractor, who made millions upgrading NORAD (twice). Eighty percent of Lockheed's business is with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Lockheed is the largest provider of information technology (IT) services, systems integration, and training to the government. [16] Read more about the infamous military industrial complex and their lucrative contracts here. "The Department of Homeland Security, the arm of the federal government responsible for ensuring our safety in times of national emergency, has become little more than an arm of big business, a radical experiment in President Bush's brand of market-based government." [17]

John Michael McConnell was a Booz Allen Senior Vice President (1996-2006). [18] He was the NSA Director (1992-1996) and the Intelligence Director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1990-1992). [19] While McConnell was at Booz Allen, he led the "firm's support to the Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, focusing on the vulnerabilities of the banking and financial sector." After 9/11, Bush authorized the mining of banking records, purportedly on a limited basis, using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). The CIA and the Treasury Department hired Booz Allen as an outside supervisory auditor. Amazing, considering Booz Allen's deep connections within the "U.S. government security establishment." It was definitely not a "genuine check" on the SWIFT program. [20][21][22]

Booz Allen Vice President Dov Zakheim (CFR), a Trustee of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a Board Member of the World Affairs Councils of America ,[23] leads the firm's global defense business. From 2001 to April 2004, "he was Under Secretary of Defense (Controller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense." [24] The Pentagon, for over twenty years, had failed all financial audits, justification for Rumsfeld's military privatization when it was announced, on September 10, 2001, that $2.3 trillion was unaccounted for.

Zakheim allegedly co-authored Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) position paper (published September 2000) which advocated the "necessity" of a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with the Middle East. Since May 20, 2008, PNAC's website is not accessible and that 90-page PDF document is no longer available from that source. The (archived) PNAC Statement of Principles has twenty-five signatories. Seventeen (68%) of the twenty-five belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Cheney (CFR Director) and Rumsfeld were signatories. [25]

Former CIA Director and current Chairman of Freedom House, R. James Woolsey (CFR), was a Booz Allen Vice President from July 2002 to February 2008. [26] He headed their "Global Assurance" division, which advises corporations on security issues. [27] He participated in the secretive North American Forum held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, September 12-14, 2006. [28] Wife, Suzanne H. Woolsey (CFR), joined the Board of Directors of Fluor Corp., an engineering and contracting firm, on February 3, 2004.

By August 2004, Fluor had a $1.6 billion Iraqi reconstruction contract. Fluor also raked in about $1.3 billion for reconstruction for Hurricane Katrina (August 23-29, 2005). [29] The storm displaced 1.5 million people and caused about $81.2 billion in damage, the costliest disaster in U.S. history. On September 26, 2005, Senator Mel Martinez hosted the Halliburton-sponsored "Katrina Reconstruction Summit" for no-Katrina-victims-need-apply contractors. Meanwhile, congress was investigating Halliburton for contract fraud. [30] Politically-connected private contractors are often awarded no-bid contracts — a veritable gift of taxpayer funds without competing with rival companies who might work better, faster and more economically.

Booz Allen Vice President, former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Keith Hall, also on the NASA Advisory Board, oversees GPS support for U.S. military interests, "a constellation of about two dozen U.S. government satellites. The Global Positioning System (GPS) was built by the DOD to aid in national security. Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) data provided by the GPS was intended to support defense operations such as precision strike capabilities." [31]

Booz Allen, a highly profitable public-private partner, is a primary partner in the NAFTA Kansas City SmartPort Project. [32][33] A main rail line will go through southeastern Colorado. See the SmartPort map; click on "Show Rail Lines" and "Show Highways." Booz Allen is creating a National Security Agency (NSA) database using records from illegal surveillance and data mining by AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. [34]

A one-year spending moratorium for the Piñon Canyon expansion was authored and sponsored by Representatives Marilyn Musgrave and John Salazar which was included in the 2008 federal budget. It is difficult to reign in a private contractor — they are, after all, not under the jurisdiction of Congress. [35] Apparently, that spending ban does not apply to the Pentagon, a presidential cabinet agency. Booz Allen "operatives" and sub-contractors (Bernett Research) continue their "studies, focus groups, invitation-only meetings and telephone polls but have been under investigation by the Government Accountability Office, as requested by Musgrave on February 27, 2008. [36] That might be akin to one mafia family investigating criminality in another mafia family.

Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar (Rep. John Salazar's brother), unknown to the "land-owning family ranchers" have "sponsored legislation designed to facilitate expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS)." [37] This legislation, counterproductive to the spending ban, was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 and authorized an "analysis by the Army" due by July. Additionally the bill included "amendments that will help curb encroachment around military bases," legislation that "is critical to our military installations in Colorado and to supporting our troops and their families." On Ken Salazar's web site: "Military installations, ranges and airspace throughout the country have been constrained by increased development, population growth and loss of habitat on non-military lands." Salazar has revealed his loyalties! Playing the patriotic card, he apparently fails to oppose the Army's private property "encroachment." He is a member of the Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs Committees. Salazar family dinners must be very interesting.

Senator Salazar seeks approval for his "contribution to conservation" through "the most recent Farm Bill." The ranchers are not impressed! "What kind of contribution to conservation is a battlefield on hundreds of thousands of acres of the largest native grassland left in the American Great Plains?" [38]

Marc Gerencser, Booz Allen's managing director of global government markets, claims that "scrutiny will not hurt the company's good standing. We follow all of the guidelines around ethics. We adhere to our core values so strongly and having a strong ethics program has been a big plus for us. In all of the actions we do, we can stand any test of scrutiny." [39] Not always, Mr. Gerencser, not always! The Pentagon pays Booz Allen millions to accomplish just one item on their perverse agenda — help the Army, the proverbial protectors of our freedoms, seize private property and destroy the livelihood of southeast Colorado ranchers.

NOTES:

[1] The RAND Corporation: America's University of Imperialism By Chalmers Johnson

[2] United Nations Global Strait Jacket by Joan Veon, pp. 355–357

[3] Ibid

[4] The RAND Corporation: America's University of Imperialism By Chalmers Johnson

[5] Ibid

[6] Carlyle Group May Buy Major CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton by Tim Shorrock , Special to CorpWatch, March 8th, 2008

[7] The Total Information Awareness Project Lives On, Technology behind the Pentagon's controversial data-mining project has been acquired by NSA, and is probably in use, April 26, 2006

[8] Carlyle Group May Buy Major CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton

[9] Booz Allen To Separate US Government and Global Commercial Business

[10] Corporate Crime Reporter, Interview With Dan Briody, Author Of The Iron Triangle: Inside The Secret World Of The Carlyle Group, (Wiley, 2003)

[11] Carlyle to Sell Stake to a Mideast Government By Andrew Ross Sorkin, September 21, 2007

[12] The Carlyle Group, Aerospace & Defense

[13] Congress Must Cut Off Bush Family War Profits by Evelyn Pringle, Global Research, April 10, 2007

[14] Carlyle Group, Wikipedia

[15] Black Gold, Chapter 4

[16] Arms Trade Resource Center

[17] Looting Homeland Security by Eric Klinenberg and Thomas Frank, December 15, 2005

[18] Intelligence officials believe Bush chose new Director in effort to darken Iran Intelligence Estimate, broaden domestic surveillance by Larisa Alexandrovna, January 8, 2007

[19] John Michael McConnell, Wikipedia,

[20] Intelligence officials believe Bush chose new Director in effort to darken Iran Intelligence Estimate, broaden domestic surveillance by Larisa Alexandrovna, January 8, 2007

[21] Booz Allen's Extensive Ties to Government Raise More Questions About SWIFT Surveillance Program, September 26, 2006

[22] Booz Allen Not An Independent Check On SWIFT Surveillance, A Memo by the American Civil Liberties Union and Privacy International, For the Article 29 Working Party of the European Commission, September 14, 2006

[23] World Affairs Councils of America, National Board Members

[24] Dr. Dov S. Zakheim — VP

[25] Project For A New American Century, The Real Foreign Policy Makers By Deanna Spingola, June 14, 2005

[26] R. James Woolsey — VP

[27] Carlyle Group May Buy Major CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton by Tim Shorrock , CorpWatch, March 8, 2008

[28] Secret Rumsfeld Meeting To Implement North American Union

[29] Rebuilding: At What Cost And In Whose Image? by Rita J. King, Special to CorpWatch, August 16th, 2006

[30] Curbing Government Contractor Abuse, San Diego Union-Tribune By Charlie Cray, September 30, 2005

[31] Booz Allen Vice President Named to NASA Advisory Board

[32] Dov Zakheim '911' Link To North American Union's KC SmartPort

[33] Service Providers, Technology Partners

[34] Telecom Companies in Cahoots with Illegal Bush Administration Surveillance Programs by Tom Burghardt, Global Research, May 27, 2008

[35] Ranchers want Army records on expenses for planning By Peter Roper, The Pueblo Chieftain, February 16, 2008

[36] Pushing the envelope Expansion-related activity sparks Musgrave's call for Piñon Canyon oversight By Michael de Yoanna

[37] Across the Fence, Mack Louden, May 19, 2008

[38] Ibid

[39] No. 13: Booz Allen, Quality over quantity, To counter scrutiny, Booz Allen puts ethics first By William Welsh

Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center. She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/spingola/080711
Posted by Alex Constantine at 7:04 AM

[sandman99]

Its great to see this info coming to the forefront in the infowar. I learned of PROMIS back in the early days of the Internet. Spook Wars In Cyberspace is still up and IMO useful and interesting background reading for what's happening now.

[Mike Philbin]

another LINK from the UFO Congress in Nevada (which doesn't sound like it was about UFOs at all, really) is about the purpose of CHEMTRAILS, did you hear that?

The purpose of 'Chemtrails' - is to 'keep us passive'.

Really interesting stuff at those UFO Congresses these days, huh? Steer clear of the politics, and we're spray-neutering you'all.

Nice.

[Angry Patriot]

 

[Mike Philbin]

see this is why I don't trust the UFO DISCLOSURE movement ... they don't wanna panic us for sixty years then they a) really f**king panic us by turning off the credit and screwing Capitalism and b) start really panicking us by saying, "Oh, yeah, we've been talking to several of the 70 or so alien species for those sixty years."

Right.

Lying b*stards.  I want my TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT and I want it NOW. This is the first thing WE THE PEOPLE should demand. For Our Eyes Only. I mean, we fund it all, so let's see it all.

[donnay]

Emerging Threats
http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009/03/11/US_cybersecurity_head_quits_citing_growing_role_of_spy_agencies/UPI-64411236692969/
U.S. cybersecurity head quits, citing growing role of spy agencies

WASHINGTON, March 10 (UPI) -- The official in charge of coordinating the U.S. government's cybersecurity operations has quit, saying the expanding control of the National Security Agency over the nation's computer security efforts poses "threats to our democratic processes."

"Even from a security standpoint," Rod Beckstrom, the head of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cyber Security Center, told United Press International, "it is unwise to hand over the security of all government networks to a single organization."

"If our founding fathers were taking part in this debate (about the future organization of the government's cybersecurity activities) there is no doubt in my mind they would support a separation of security powers among different (government) organizations, in line with their commitment to checks and balances."

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano last week, Beckstrom said the NSA "dominates most national cyber efforts" and "effectively controls DHS cyber efforts through detailees, technology insertions and the proposed move" of the NCSC to an NSA facility at the agency's Fort Meade, Md., headquarters.

"I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds," wrote Beckstrom in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by UPI. "The intelligence culture is very different than a network operations or security culture. In addition, threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top-level government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization."

Greg Garcia, who was the Bush administration's first presidentially appointed head of cybersecurity at DHS before leaving last December -- and who worked with Beckstrom for nine months -- told UPI that, while he does not share Beckstrom's anxiety, "I recognize the cautionary flag he is raising."

Beckstrom's resignation -- after just less than a year in office -- comes as the new Obama administration moves to complete a 60-day review of the way cybersecurity efforts are organized in the U.S. government. Successive administrations have wrestled with the complex problem of how to delineate and define the roles of various intelligence, military and security agencies in assuring the integrity of the nation's computer networks -- the vast majority of which are owned and operated by the private sector and depend for their efficacy on their open and accessible, and therefore security-unfriendly, architecture.

"There's been a lot of duplication and not enough coordination," Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, a former senior congressional staffer on the House Homeland Security Committee, told UPI.

Garcia said there had been "a fairly collaborative partnership, not just between NSA and DHS, but … with a whole lot of moving parts" and different agencies within the government.

"Clearly, both operationally and technologically, the Intelligence Community is a key element," he said, using the insider's terms of art for the sprawling and sometimes fractious collection of spy agencies that serve the U.S. government. But he said DHS' role had to be primary "from a legal standpoint and from a trust and privacy standpoint."

"Unlike the (Department of Defense) or the Intelligence Community, DHS has a statutory responsibility to work across all levels of federal, state and local government and the private sector," he said.

DHS has come under fire for its cybersecurity work, with some criticizing an approach they saw characterized by turf squabbles and overlapping and contradictory lines of authority. Some, including most recently Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, have called for a greater role for U.S. intelligence agencies in cybersecurity as a result of the 60-day review, which is being led by an official in Blair's office.

Garcia acknowledged what he called "growing pains" in DHS' cybersecurity efforts but maintained it would be a mistake to shift primary responsibility for the issue away from the department.

"If there were a move," as a result of the 60-day review, "to centralize or focus cybersecurity strategy on the Intelligence Community, that would jeopardize the relationship we (at DHS) built up over several years with the private sector."

Another Bush administration DHS official, former Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker, told UPI that although Beckstrom's criticism of the NSA's role was receiving more media attention, "I suspect his frustration was driven as much by the funding and organizational issues as by NSA."

In his resignation letter, Beckstrom wrote that "the NCSC did not receive appropriate support inside DHS. … During the past year, the NCSC received only five weeks of funding, due to various roadblocks engineered within the department and by the Office of Management and Budget."

"Someone canceled all our contracts for office space, computers and furniture … without telling us," he told UPI. "I never had a one-on-one meeting with the new secretary, although I reported directly to her … and last year, there were only five weeks during which we had access to the money to make hires, rent office space and buy equipment we needed."

"He came from a very different background" than most federal officials, said Herrera-Flanigan of Beckstrom, who was a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and author before joining the department.

"There was a big challenge" for him in negotiating "the dynamics between the different players" in the department, she said. "Unless he was given the authorities to coordinate across the department, it would have been a problem," she added.

Beckstrom said the center he ran, set up to oversee and coordinate all federal government cybersecurity activity, "has a role which is much coveted by others in government, so there were natural tensions."

"Rod is a friend and a remarkable talent," said Baker. "He understood Washington much better than most in Silicon Valley. His inability to move the bureaucracy shows how deep is the divide between government and the tech community."

Department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa told UPI that DHS "has a strong relationship with the NSA … and is fully engaged with the 60-day cybersecurity review. … We look forward to our continued, positive working relationship with all our partners on outreach to the private sector as we strive to further secure our nation's cyber networks.

"We thank Rod for his service, and regret his departure," she concluded.

The NSA's public affairs office referred requests for comment to DHS.

[lordssyndicate]

So, here we have evidence that they were testing readyness for the cyberwarfare attack 4 years ago even!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/120803blackout.html
Joint Task Force Told Face to Face, Blackout was a Military Test


Oliver J. Midelson

At an under publicized public comment meeting, which was publicly 'announced' by a Department of Energy news release, Michael Kane outlined his report, published at Global Free Press, stating that the August 14th blackout was part and parcel to a multi-faceted military test. The Task Force was very attentive, attempting to take notes as fast as Michael spoke. 

His comments can be heard in Windows Media player format (now playing). They were the last comments made to the panel.

It was a snowy Friday afternoon in Manhattan and very few people showed up. Both Forbes and the Akron Beacon Journal left out Michael's comments in their "coverage" of the New York pubic comment meeting. Once again the mainstream media completely fails the public, and Global Free Press is the only publication brave enough to run the real coverage of this so-called 'public' comment meeting. How public can it be if no one reports it? The "New Media" such as GFP, FTW, INN, SGTV, and many more are proving to be our only salvation. 

Michael made the only interesting comments given the entire day with the exception of Carole Dortch-Wright, who spoke on behalf of New Jersey Governor James McGreevey. The NY Times, who had a reporter present at this meeting, seem to have provided no coverage in their Saturday edition. For the record, I personally saw Michael's report handed to the NY Times reporter. Hopefully they are saving it for their Sunday edition, but I won't hold my breath.

Very few people showed up to the public comment meeting in Cleveland, Ohio on December 4th, prompting Rep. Dennis Kucinich and four other members of Congress to accuse the D.O.E. of failing to adequately notify the public, according to the Akron Beacon Journal

The first point Michael made was that the Task Force Interim Report failed to address the possibility of Electro Magnetic Pulses causing the blackout. He noted that it is known HAARP was turned on at 4pm on August 14th, just 11 minutes before the blackout occurred. He stated the Air Force should be contacted and required to turn over all documentation pertaining to what HAARP was used for on that day. 

Michael detailed the aerial aerosol spray operation he witnessed the night of the blackout, as well as referencing the proximity of the Determined Promise '03 national military drills announced just one day after the blackout. He also mentioned he received a report that the Canadian border was militarized at 1pm on August 14th, just three hours before the blackout, in the Mohawk River Valley region. Why? 

Dr. Nawal Kamel appeared to be pleased to hear Mr. Kane's comments, as he was the only person who appealed to the Task Force as a citizen void of any special interest. In addition to this, Senior Policy Advisor James Glotfelty was nodding his head up and down as Michael began to speak of PD-16. 

Wayne Madsen has revealed National Security Presidential Directive 16 (PD-16) gave the president authority to wage cyber-warfare against other countries, including bringing down their power grids. Michael pointed out we do not know if any elements of PD-16 pertain to North America. 

He continued by referencing Tommy Franks' recent comments in Cigar Aficionado. General Franks' stated if another terrorist attack occurs in America, the Constitution would be scrapped for a military government. Visibly upset by this outrageous statement, Michael put down his prepared statement and made a much-needed comparison to the current 'independent' commission to investigate 9-11.                         

He noted how the victims family members were terribly disappointed with the 9-11 Commission, and that it is clear the commission will not withstand historical scrutiny. He ended by warning this Task Force the only way for them to avoid the same destiny is to address the questions outlined in his report. He then offered to hand his report to any one interested in reviewing it. 

At this point, Alison Silverstein, co-chair of the Electric System Working Group (ESWG) threw both her hands out, prompting Michael to personally hand his report to all nine Task Force members. 

I asked Michael what he thought of the Task Force's response: 

"I wanted to appeal to their hearts as well as their minds," said Michael in the Park Central Hotel Lobby, "�I think I may have touched one or two hearts in there today."

[Farn]

Terror business is very good business these days.  Economic, climate, political, Islamic, technological, pirate, etc.  Islamic is the least important, by far, of these.  What's more, its been around for thousands of years.  I saw somewhere that 20X more people die from peanut allergy syndrome than have died from Islamic terrorism in a ten year period, yet many thousand times more money is spent (wasted) on anti-terror than allergy research.  While the threat of "terrorism" is not quite garbage, it is most assuredly rubbish.  We have very little to fear from people in caves.  Al Qaeda is mostly a myth created to justify the destruction of American values of freedom, sovereignty and individualism, the repealing of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.  Another myth being created is that Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists, and pro-America Americans are terrorists.  Now this is not only garbage, but but nasty, stinking garbage.  UFOs, Global warming (now "climate change"), etc. are also myths.  The climate is always changing - always has and always will - due to ever-changing sun radiation levels.  Cosmic terrorism -- the threat of asteroidal impact, for example -- is real, however.   Shoemaker-Levy 9 (93/3-94/7) illustrated this handily.  No, Virginia, those craters on the moon are not extinct volcanos (blimey!).

The real terrorists, of course, are the promoters and enablers of terror - the creeps mentioned in the posts above who work for the money, just like the Somali priates do.  This is why the pirates will always be protected, funded and enabled, while the ship captains and crews will always be disarmed and disabled.  Sitting ducks. 

   

[Farn]

Cosmic terrorism -- the threat of asteroidal impact, for example -- is real, however.   Shoemaker-Levy 9 (93/3-94/7) illustrated this handily.  No, Virginia, those craters on the moon are not extinct volcanos (blimey!). ..

 Sitting ducks. 
   

Intelligence courtesy of The Landlords

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://www.afji.com/2008/08/3534079

Playing for keeps
BY MARK HERMAN

Computers have permeated everyday life, making even the smallest task quicker and more efficient. The problem is that the efficiencies created by computers are costing us our resilience to rebound from technological disturbances. To counter this, the U.S. military needs to lead more war-game cyber security exercises, not only across the services, but also together with the federal civilian government, critical infrastructure industry sectors and allies.

Just as the Internet is a network of networks, the world has become a system of systems, in which computers have made everyone interconnected and dependent on each other. We see it in the air when a plane is handed off from control tower to tower; on land, where electricity comes at the flip of a switch; and in the water, where fiber-optic cables on the sea floor deliver communications access from one country to another. Our adversaries see these same capabilities, but they see them as our vulnerabilities. The military is the offensive team for cyber warfare, and it’s important to have both a good offense and defense.

One of the most unsettling aspects of cyber warfare lies in the ability it affords perpetrators to conduct operations from anywhere a computer can be linked to a network. Thus, the battlefield is constantly shifting, and attacks can be launched from virtually anywhere. And as efforts to defend against cyber attacks have expanded in scope and effectiveness, hackers have broadened their efforts.

An unsuccessful cyber attack recently was highlighted in a Business Week article, “The New E-spionage Threat.” The article discussed an e-mail message sent to my employer, defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Although the cyber attack was a failure, what made the e-mail communication unique lies in the fact that the perpetrator used publicly available documents to uncover names of military officials and contractors who would or could have working relationships. The hacker went so far as to ensure that the Booz Allen vice president and the Pentagon employee whose e-mail account was spoofed, worked in similar lines of business, increasing the likelihood that a malware message would be opened and an attack would be successful.

Specifically, the Booz Allen vice president whose name was lifted by hackers is a defense acquisition specialist who provides consultation to the Defense Department on requests from foreign governments to purchase U.S.-made weaponry. The spoof e-mail, which outlined a list of military equipment that India supposedly wanted to buy, did not seem out of the ordinary. However, had my colleague clicked on embedded links within the e-mail, it could have potentially placed sensitive information in jeopardy. Fortunately, the ploy didn’t work and Booz Allen’s networks were not breached. The e-mails were traced to a small Chinese server host. The Chinese government has denied knowledge of the e-mails.

Booz Allen and the Defense Department are not the only targets of cyber attacks. Nearly all major defense contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, as well as many foreign governments, have noticed increased attacks against their networks.

And the attacks do not target just U.S. interests. One of the largest and most publicized cyber wars we’ve seen to date was waged against Estonia. For more than two weeks, distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks were targeted against the country’s government, police, financial and other critical Web sites, with dramatic results. The attacks were so successful that Estonia’s network infrastructure was near collapse and the targeted sites had to be shut down for extended periods of time to stem the attacks, affecting communications across all of Estonia’s industries. Estonia, like many other countries, built its network infrastructure on a small base of computers, making an attack of this kind all the more damaging.

Although the effect of the attacks was clear, their source was not. Suspicions that the Russian government was involved arose almost immediately. In the weeks leading up to the cyber attacks, an old Soviet-era war monument had been moved from Estonia’s capital to an outlying military cemetery — apparently the cause of considerable offense within the former USSR. Using electronic fingerprinting, Estonia was able to trace the attacks to a series of computers, including some within the Russian government. Although the attacks were mitigated, experts were not able to verify their origin, whether they were indeed caused by the Russian government, if they were simply attacks originating from Russia, or if they were computers infected with a virus that was programmed to execute DDoS attacks against the Web sites. The Russian government has denied involvement with the incident. Even so, the facts are simple: the world community, including governments and the military, will continue to depend on computers and the intertwined network infrastructure that connects them. As a result, the military, together with the greater community, must plan and prepare for cyber warfare.

WAR-GAMING FOR A CYBER ATTACK

Today, it can seem as if every time a computer is turned on, yet another update or new patch needs to be installed. It’s a tedious task, but these updates are good preparation for a variety of cyber attacks. However, the trouble with depending solely on technology updates is that many come too late. Instead, a two-pronged approach is needed to plan and prepare for a cyber attack — one focused on technology and one on war-gaming. Planning for a cyber attack and likely outcomes using war-gaming, as is done for military engagements, offers new levels of protection and represents a critical step forward in preparedness. Yes, the concept of war-gaming a cyber attack may seem strange to those who’ve sat around a table war-gaming for a battle scenario, a tangible fight with a tangible location. Nonetheless, a war game is not just an exercise for the physical fight — it’s an opportunity to improve preparedness, whatever the parameters.

War-gaming is a form of cognitive warfare that is focused on a plausible scenario that, in turn, allows people to explore the implications of complex issues based on models of behavior. In cyber warfare, just as in combat, the adversary chooses which battleground to target, and it’s up to commanders to decide how to address the assault. To truly explore all potential outcomes and to get the best results with war-gaming, teams of people with varying skill sets need to be in the room together.

Cyber warfare should not only include those well-versed in information technology, but also a diverse range of involved parties, regardless of technical knowledge.

Bob White, a war-gaming expert at Booz Allen, said, “War-gaming is a good way to get at things that you don’t understand and can’t quantify. The key data that comes out of war-gaming is qualitative. It depends on the intelligence, skill and quick thinking of people. Technology can be modeled, but people’s reactions, perceptions and creativity under stress cannot.”

War games need to be conducted by people. Computers are great, but they cannot mimic the ingenuity of the human mind. An essential element of war-gaming is competition: One side predominates and one side does not. People’s competitiveness can inspire them to new heights. Computers are good for efficiencies such as visualizing material and doing complex calculations, but they are not effective war-gamers.

In the attacks on Estonia, some of the heavily targeted Web sites were government, financial, media and police sites. From a military perspective, these targets were textbook because they hit at the country’s core command and control, communications and morale. At the time, these sectors were seen as linked, but it was not fully appreciated how linked they truly were until the attacks occurred. Computers would not have been able to piece together the strategy behind these attacks; they would have been able only to execute them. This underlying connectedness is why, during military and government war-gaming scenarios, private industry needs to be considered, if not included, in the exercises. An attack as crippling as this one would be more difficult to execute in the U.S., but it could also be more damaging.

PLANNING FOR THE INEVITABLE

There has been a slew of movies that have involved terrorists taking over both government and industry networks. Perhaps the most memorable celluloid cyber attack was depicted in “Live Free or Die Hard,” in which coordinated cyber attacks are used by terrorists to hijack the nation’s power grid, with chaos ensuing. As implausible as the scenario may seem, Government Accountability Office statistics reveal that 85 percent of the U.S. critical infrastructure is controlled by the private sector.

Although privatization has its merits, we also must recognize that if these critical assets are not properly protected and safeguarded against cyber attacks, we have a big problem. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recognizes the large-scale effects of cyber warfare on the U.S. and has conducted two comprehensive cyber security exercises, aptly named Cyber Storm. In March, DHS conducted its second Cyber Storm II National Cyber Exercise. According to DHS, the exercise, which simulated a large-scale cyber attack, was conducted to assess the communications, coordination and partnerships across critical infrastructure sectors including chemical, IT, communications and transportation. Participants came from five countries, nine states and 11 Cabinet-level agencies, including the Defense Department and more than 40 private-sector companies.

Private-sector involvement in government and military exercises is not unusual but, traditionally, participation has been limited to those within the government, or to those within the same agency. Fortunately, key government officials have begun to realize that to plan and prepare for an attack necessitates both cross-agency and cross-industry participation. In Cyber Storm, planners worked with each organization and sector to refine objectives for the exercise.

In the end, the main objectives included the examination of the capabilities of organizations to prepare for, protect from and respond to cyber attacks; strategic decision-making and interagency coordination of incident response; the validation of information-sharing among agencies and organizations for response and recovery; and finally, an examination of the processes to share sensitive information without compromising national security. Although the hot wash is still underway, several lessons emerged immediately during and after the exercise:

å Hands-down, the participants agreed upon the importance of having established relationships within the cyber-security, emergency-response and homeland-security communities.

å They realized that cyber events affected more than just the Web and Internet. Participants found that not only were networks affected, there also were implications for physical operations.

å By war-gaming a diverse range of possibilities, the participating organizations saw not only what could happen, but also what was needed to blunt cyber warfare assaults. Such large-scale cyber exercises also would be greatly beneficial to the military.

å DHS and the U.S. military have different missions, different capabilities and different sensitivities. Participating in this exercise is a must for the military, but a military-led exercise that addresses its unique needs is essential. Cyber attacks are not going to stop. If anything, they are becoming more insidious by the day.

In its annual report to Congress on China’s military power, the Defense Department highlighted the increased number of cyber attacks from China, with or without the knowledge or consent of the government. Interestingly, the attacks have been consistent with the People’s Liberation Army’s doctrine describing technology attacks: “[The] application of non-nuclear high technologies can bring about strategic effects similar to that of nuclear weapons, and at the same time, it can avoid the great political risk possibly caused by transgressing the nuclear threshold.”

“I think that we should start to consider that regret factors associated with a cyber attack could, in fact, be in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction,” said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His comment in the 2007 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission sheds light on the magnitude of the damage cyber attacks could cause.

To underscore Gen. Cartwright’s point, since the beginning of 2008, two little-reported, highly important cyber incidents have occurred. In January, the Central Intelligence Agency reported that cyber attacks had caused power outages in multiple regions outside the U.S. Although the CIA did not specifically mention which countries were affected, the point is that hackers were able to launch effective attacks at nations’ power grids.

As an example of the effect of a power outage in the U.S., consider the outage along the Northeastern seaboard into New York, Ohio and Michigan in 2003. More than 1 million people were without power. Water supplies were affected because of the states’ use of electric pumps to filter water. Subways in New York were stopped, stranding hundreds of thousands of people. Cyber attacks were ruled out for this outage and it was discovered that a few small problems expanded into a significantly damaging event. The power grids have become so interconnected that a transmission problem caused an extensive power outage.

Cyber warfare against our critical infrastructure could cause these same effects, only on a broader and more damaging basis. Critical infrastructure is controlled by a system called supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and usually refers to a centralized system that monitors and controls entire sites, or in the case of the example used earlier, complexes of systems spread across large areas. The devices controlled by SCADA can include power generators, water treatment and traffic signals. The site control of SCADA systems is performed automatically by remote terminal units; however, the system can be overridden by human intervention.

A second cyber incident was of the United States’ own doing. DHS researchers at the Energy Department’s Idaho lab tested a facility generator by launching a cyber attack across the system. Researchers hacked into a replica of the power plant’s control system and changed the operating system. The attack caused the generator to self-destruct.

Changes are being made to the computer software and hardware of the system, but adding to the vulnerability is the fact that many of the systems are manufactured and used around the world. Schematics of the control system may be easily obtained by people at manufacturing plants, making the securing of these types of control systems even more critical.

It is crucial that the U.S. military plan and prepare for the growing threat of cyber warfare. A recent Air Force Cyber Command Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment that tested network warfare was a step in the right direction, but war-gaming provides the military with a way to both plan for what may happen and also to consider what actions might be taken and how to execute on them.

By leading a war game for cyber warfare and by including all of the relevant agencies and industries, the military will gain a better understanding and a more comprehensive understanding of its capabilities and adversarial capabilities.

Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence said: “As government, private sector and personal activities continue to move to networked operations, as our digital systems add ever more capabilities, as wireless systems become even more ubiquitous, and as the design, manufacture and service of information technology has moved overseas, our vulnerabilities will continue to grow.”

[Mike Philbin]

Government Accountability Office statistics reveal that 85 percent of the U.S. critical infrastructure is controlled by the private sector.

That's not unexpected for a Corporate Government, right?