Skip navigation

Tag Archives: tyranny

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Long before 1984 gave us the adjective “Orwellian” to describe the political corruption of language and thought, Thucydides observed how factional struggles for power make words their first victims. Describing the horrors of civil war on the island of Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides wrote, “Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.” Orwell explains the reason for such degradation of language in his essay “Politics and the English Language”: “Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.”

Tyrannical power and its abuses comprise the “indefensible” that must be verbally disguised. The gulags, engineered famines, show trials, and mass murder of the Soviet Union required that it be a “regime of lies,” as the disillusioned admirer of Soviet communism Pierre Pascal put it in 1927.

Image credit: 

Barbara Kelley

Our own political and social discourse must torture language in order to disguise the failures and abuses of policies designed to advance the power and interests of the “soft despotism,” as Tocqueville called it, of the modern Leviathan state and its political caretakers. Meanwhile, in foreign policy the transformation of meaning serves misguided policies that endanger our security and interests.

One example from domestic policy recently cropped up in Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s dissent in the Schuette decision, which upheld the Michigan referendum banning racial preferences. In her dissent, Sotomayor called for replacing the term  “affirmative action” with “race-sensitive admissions.” But “affirmative action” was itself a euphemism for the racial quotas in use in college admissions until they were struck down in the 1978 Bakke decision. To salvage racial discrimination, which any process that gives race an advantage necessarily requires, Bakke legitimized yet another euphemism, “diversity,” as a compelling state interest that justified taking race into account in university admissions.

Thus the most important form of “diversity” for the university became the easily quantifiable one of race. Not even socio-economic status can trump it, as the counsel for the University of Texas admitted during oral arguments in Fisher vs. University of Texas last year, when he implied that a minority applicant from a privileged background would add more diversity to the university than a less privileged white applicant. All these verbal evasions are necessary for camouflaging the fact that any process that discriminates on the basis of race violates the Civil Rights Act ban on such discrimination. Promoting an identity politics predicated on historical victimization and the equality of result is more important than the principle of equality before the law, and this illiberal ideology must be hidden behind distortions of language and vague phrases like “race-sensitive” and “diversity.” 

Another example can be found in the recently released report from the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. The report is the basis for the government’s numerous policy and procedural suggestions to universities and colleges in order to help them “live up to their obligation to protect students from sexual violence.” Genuine sexual violence, of course, needs to be investigated, adjudicated, and punished to the full extent of the law by the police and the judicial system. But the “sexual assault” and “sexual violence” the Obama administration is talking about is something different. 

At the heart of the White House report is the oft-repeated 2007 statistic that 20 percent of female college students have been victims of “sexual assault,” which most people will understand to mean rape or sexual battery. Yet as many critics of the study have pointed out, that preposterous number––crime-ridden Detroit’s rape rate is 0.05 percent––was achieved by redefining “sexual assault” to include even consensual sexual contact when the woman was drunk, and behaviors like “forced kissing” and “rubbing up against [the woman] in a sexual way, even if it is over [her] clothes.”

The vagueness and subjectivity of such a definition is an invitation to women to abandon personal responsibility and agency by redefining clumsy or boorish behavior as “sexual assault,” a phrase suggesting physical violence against the unwilling. As one analyst of the flawed study has reported, “three-quarters of the female students who were classified as victims of sexual assault by incapacitation did not believe they had been raped; even when only incidents involving penetration were counted, nearly two-thirds did not call it rape.” As many have pointed out, if genuine sexual assault were happening, colleges would be calling in the police, not trying the accused in campus tribunals made up of legal amateurs and lacking constitutional protections such as the right to confront and cross-examine one’s accuser. 

What matters more than protecting college women against a phantom epidemic of rape, then, is the need to expand government power into the social lives of college students, empowering the federal bureaucrats, university administrators, and ideological programs like women’s studies that all stand to benefit by this sort of coercive intrusion. This enshrining of racial and sexual ideology into law through the abuse of language has had damaging consequences, whether for the minority college students mismatched with the universities to which they are admitted, thus often ensuring their failure and disillusion; or for the young women encouraged to abandon their autonomy and surrender it to government and education bureaucrats who know better than they how to make sense of their experiences and decisions.

In foreign policy, however, the abuse of language is positively dangerous. Since 9/11, our failure to identity the true nature of the Islamist threat and its grounding in traditional Islamic theology has led to misguided aims and tactics. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, for example, the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad––which means to fight against the enemies of Islam, which predominantly means infidels––has been redefined to serve the dubious tactic of flattering Islam in order to prevent Muslim terrorism.

Thus in 2008 the National Terrorism Center instructed its employees, “Never use the term jihadist or mujahideen in conversation to describe terrorists,” since “In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare.” Similarly, CIA chief John Brennan has asserted that jihad “is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community,” despite the fourteen centuries of evidence from the Koran, hadiths, and bloody history that jihad is in fact predominantly an obligatory armed struggle against the enemies of Islam. The reluctance to put Muslim violence in its religious context reflects not historical truth, but a public relations tactic serving the delusional strategy of appeasing Muslims into liking us.

That’s why, to this day, the 2009 murders of 13 military personnel at Fort Hood by Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan are still classified as “workplace violence” rather than an act of terror. This despite the fact that Hasan––whose business cards had the initials “SoA,” “Soldier of Allah,” on them––shouted the traditional Islamic battle cry “Allahu Akbar” during his rampage. Or that in a presentation at Walter Reed Hospital, Hasan had put up a slide with the great commission to practice jihad that Mohammed delivered in his farewell address: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’” This command to wage jihad was echoed in 1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeini, revered as a “Grand Sign of God” for his theological acumen, and by Osama bin Laden in 2001. Those ignoring this venerable jihadist tradition must use verbal evasions like “workplace violence” and “striving in the path of God” to hide the indefensible––and failed––tactic of appeasement that prevents us from accurately understanding the religious motives of Muslim terrorists, and the extent of the Muslim world’s support for them.

No foreign policy crisis, however, is more illustrative of the “regime of lies” and abuse of language to serve “indefensible” aims than the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The Arabs’ aim, of course, is to destroy Israel as a nation, a policy they have consistently pursued since 1948. Since military attacks have failed ignominiously, an international public relations campaign coupled to terrorist violence has been employed to weaken Israel’s morale and separate Israel from her Western allies. An Orwellian assault on language has been key to this tactic.

Examples are legion, but one is particularly insidious, here seen in a New York Times headline from 2011: “Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.” The common reference to “borders” in regard to what is in fact the armistice line from the 1948 Arab war against Israel is ubiquitous. Yet there has never been recognized in international law a formal “border” between Israel and what the world, in another Orwellian phrase, calls the “West Bank,” because that territory has never been part of a modern nation. Its only international legal status was as part of the British Mandate for Palestine, which was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922, and which was intended as the national homeland for the Jewish people. The Arabs’ rejection of the U.N. partition plan and their invasion of Israel in 1948 put the territory’s status in limbo once Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria, which the international community with a few exceptions refused to recognize. In 1967 Israel took it back in another defensive war against Arab aggression. Since then, its final disposition has awaited a peace treaty that will determine the international border.

This may sound like quibbling over careless language, but the dishonest use of “border” reinforces and encodes in peoples’ minds the big lie of the conflict––that a Palestinian “nation” is being deprived of its “homeland” by Israel, a canard that didn’t become current among Arabs and the rest of the world until after the 1967 Six Day War. And this lie in turns validates the common use of “occupation”––which implies an illegal invasion into and control of another nation, as the Germans did to France in 1940––to describe Israel’s defensive possession of territories that have long served as launch pads for aggression against Israel. Until a peace treaty, the territory known as the “West Bank”––more accurately Judea and Samaria, the heartland of historical Israel for centuries––is disputed, not “occupied.”

To paraphrase Thucydides, words like “borders” and “occupation” have had their ordinary meanings changed, and been forced to take meanings that serve tyranny and aggression. And we who accept those new meanings are complicit in the resulting injustice that follows.

Advertisements

Government Spies On Innocent People Via Webcams, Laptops, Xbox

Latest Snowden Leak confirms story Infowars first broke EIGHT YEARS AGO

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 27, 2014

The latest revelation concerning mass government spying confirms an issue that Infowars has been covering for close to a decade. British and American governments are spying on people in their own homes via web cams, laptop microphones and devices such as the X-box.

The London Guardian has the details in a report based on information leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The British surveillance agency GCHQ, with help from the NSA, actively spied on nearly 2 million Yahoo users via webcams built into their computers. The documents show that the agency intercepted millions of images as part of a secret program codenamed OPTIC NERVE.

The report also states that Americans were almost certainly targeted as part of the bulk collection of data, and that there is no law to prevent such activity in Britain.

NSA ragout 4

The documents show that images were collected from webcams at regular intervals, one image every five minutes, and were used by the spy agency to trial automated facial recognition programs.

The Guardian describes the process as “eerily reminiscent of the telescreens evoked in George Orwell’s 1984.”

NSA ragout 3

The documents dub the practice as “bulk access to Yahoo webcam images/events”, and spies working at GCHQ compared it to a police database of mugshots. “Face detection has the potential to aid selection of useful images for ‘mugshots’ or even for face recognition by assessing the angle of the face,” the papers read. “The best images are ones where the person is facing the camera with their face upright.”

Essentially, the spy agency appear to have been building a huge digital database containing the faces of Yahoo users.

The documents advise employees at GCHQ on how to use the system, noting “[I]f you search for similar IDs to your target, you will be able to request automatic comparison of the face in the similar IDs to those in your target’s ID”.

In one presentation contained within the documents, more technologically advanced systems, such as iris recognition cameras, are discussed as potential surveillance tools. The paper even chillingly states “think Tom Cruise in Minority Report”.

The documents state that Yahoo users were specifically singled out because “Yahoo webcam is known to be used by GCHQ targets”.

The papers also note that a large quantity of the data collected contained nudity or sexually explicit imagery. The spy agency seemingly made no effort to prevent the collection of such images.

Yahoo described the practice as “a whole new level of violation of our users’ privacy,” and strenuously denied having any knowledge of the program.

Infowars first reported in 2006, EIGHT YEARS AGO, that innocent people were being spied on through their computers. We specifically described the practice as Minority Report style technology, as the GCHQ had done.

We have since covered the issue consistently, warning that “Hundreds of millions of Internet-active Americans will all be potential targets for secret surveillance.”

Of course, some quarters dismissed our reports as “conspiracy theories”, while worried internet users questioned whether the reports were accurate.

The GCHQ program was seemingly not limited to Yahoo user web cams either. Another presentation within the leaked internal papers discusses the capabilities of the Xbox 360′s Kinect camera, saying it generated “fairly normal webcam traffic” and that it was being evaluated as a potential surveillance tool.

We have also documented the potential use of Xbox for surveillance purposes, noting that Skype calls made on the devices can be intercepted. We have also warned that the ‘always on’ camera of the new Xbox One, which is so powerful it can see through clothing, is wide open to abuse by hackers and government agencies.

According to the leaked documents, the OPTIC NERVE program began as a prototype in 2008 and was still active in 2012. There is no indication that the program has been deactivated.

Security expert Bruce Schneier writes that this latest revelation highlights how there is no distinction between actively spying on a person and what he called “Eavesdropping by algorithm”, in other words, automated computer surveillance. The NSA and the Obama administration have attempted to argue that what they are doing cannot be called “spying” or even “collecting” data, because when the data is gathered, a person is not looking at it. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper still uses this explanation to claim he never lied to Congress when he answered ‘no’ to the question “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

The fallout from the OPTIC NERVE program, the creation of facial recognition databases, and the fact that spooks provably looked at images of people, even NAKED images of people, highlights the fact, Schneier argues, that the “NSA’s definition of ‘collect’ makes no sense whatsoever”, and that our governments are indeed actively spying on us.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

By 24 Feb 2014, 6:25 PM EST
Featured photo - How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations”.

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world”, including “information ops (influence or disruption)”.

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the newly created NSA review panel announced by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell”, devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack”, while dissecting how human being can be manipulated using “leaders”, “trust, “obedience” and “compliance”:

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Think Tank: “Extraordinary Crisis” Needed to Preserve “New World Order”

Author of ‘shock and awe’ doctrine says elite threatened by non-state actors like Edward Snowden

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 17, 2014

Writing for the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank based in Washington DC, Harlan K. Ullman warns that an “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,” which is under threat of being derailed by non-state actors like Edward Snowden.

Image: Atlantic Council Meeting (Wikimedia Commons).

The Atlantic Council is considered to be a highly influential organization with close ties to major policy makers across the world. It’s headed up by Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former United States National Security Advisor under U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. Snowcroft has also advised President Barack Obama.

Harlan K. Ullman was the principal author of the “shock and awe” doctrine and is now Chairman of the Killowen Group which advises government leaders.

In an article entitled War on Terror Is not the Only Threat, Ullman asserts that, “tectonic changes are reshaping the international geostrategic system,” arguing that it’s not military superpowers like China but “non-state actors” like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and anonymous hackers who pose the biggest threat to the “365 year-old Westphalian system” because they are encouraging individuals to become self-empowered, eviscerating state control.

“Very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization,” notes Ullman, lamenting that “information revolution and instantaneous global communications” are thwarting the “new world order” announced by U.S. President George H.W. Bush more than two decades ago.

“Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance,” writes Ullman, implying that only another 9/11-style cataclysm will enable the state to re-assert its dominance while “containing, reducing and eliminating the dangers posed by newly empowered non-state actors.”

Ullman concludes that the elimination of non-state actors and empowered individuals “must be done” in order to preserve the new world order. A summary of their material suggests that the Atlantic Council’s definition of a “new world order” is a global technocracy run by a fusion of big government and big business under which individuality is replaced by transhumanist singularity.

Ullman’s rhetoric sounds somewhat similar to that espoused by Trilateral Commission co-founder and regular Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in 2010 told a Council on Foreign Relations meeting that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.

Ullman’s implied call for an “extraordinary crisis” to reinvigorate support for state power and big government has eerie shades of the Project For a New American Century’s 1997 lament that “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” an expansion of U.S. militarism would have been impossible.

In 2012, Patrick Clawson, member of the influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, also suggested that the United States should launch a staged provocation to start a war with Iran.

Ullman’s concern over failing state institutions having their influence eroded by empowered individuals, primarily via the Internet, is yet another sign that the elite is panicking over the “global political awakening” that has most recently expressed itself via the actions of people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and their growing legion of supporters.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Friday, January 17, 2014 at 6:09 am

Congress Backs Terrorists In Syria, Says We Need NSA Spying Because There are Terrorists In Syria

Washington’s Blog
December 4, 2013

The civil war in Syria started in March 2011. And see this.

However, the U.S. has been funding the Syrian opposition since 2006 … and arming the opposition since2007. (In reality, the U.S. and Britain considered attacking Syrians and then blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change … 50 years ago (the U.S. just admitted that they did this to Iran) . And the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight. And see this.)

The New York Times, (and here and here) , Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, McClatchy (andhere), AP, Time, Reuters, BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph, Agence France-Presse, Asia Times, and the Star (and here) confirm that supporting the rebels means supporting Al Qaeda and two other terrorist groups.

Indeed, the the New York Times has reported that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.

The Syrian rebels are now calling for terrorist attacks on America. And we’ve long known that most of the weapons we’re shipping to Syria are ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. And they apparently have chemical weapons.

And yet the U.S. is stepping up its support for the Islamic extremists.

The chair of the House Intelligence Committee – Mike Rogers – voted for arming the Syrian rebels. And the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee – Diane Feinstein – has apparently quietly let arms flow to the rebels.

So are they admitting their mistake?

Heck, no! They’re using the specter of Syrian terrorists to justify mass surveillance by the NSA on innocent Americans …

And now he’s trying to use rebel Al Qaeda as an excuse for mass surveillance by the NSA.

As Juan Cole notes:

Senator Diane Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers took to the airwaves on Sunday to warn that Americans are less safe than two years ago and that al-Qaeda is growing and spreading and that the US is menaced by bombs that can’t be detected by metal detectors.

Call me cynical, but those two have been among the biggest detractors of the American citizen’s fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure of personal effects and papers. I think their attempt to resurrect Usama Bin Laden is out of the National Security Agency internal playbook, which specifically instructs spokesmen to play up the terrorist threat when explaining why they need to know who all 310 million Americans are calling on our phones every day. [Here’s what he’s talking about. Andhere.]

CNN’s Candy Crowley interviews them

Now, obviously there are violent extremists in the world and the US like all other societies is likely to fall victim to further attacks by terrorists. But if they could not inflict significant damage on us with 9/11 (and economically and in every other way except the horrible death toll, they could not), then it is a little unlikely that this kind of threat is existential.

In fact the number of terrorist attacks in the US has vastly declined since the 1970s (as has violent crime over-all), as WaPo’s chart shows:

(The chart shows each attack as a number and does not show fatalities; obviously the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 would be prominent in that case. But the fact is that foreign terrorist attacks kill almost no one in America these days. You’re far more likely to fall in your bathtub and die than to face terrorism).

Rogers makes a big deal out of the fighting in northern Syria as a threat to the United States and says “thousands” of “Westerners” have gone to fight there. But Rogers is just obfuscating by mentioning vastly exaggerated statistics.

The number of Americans estimated by the FBI to be fighting in Syria? 24. Two dozen. That’s it.

The Syrian civil war has nothing to do with the US, and is a local struggle rather unlikely to involve hitting America (more especially since, as Rogers carefully avoids mentioning, the US is committed to arming these rebels to fight against al-Assad.)

That’s right. Mike Rogers voted to give arms to the Syrian rebels. And while he may hope they don’t go to the al-Qaeda affiliates (as happened when Ronald Reagan gave $5 billion to the Afghan Mujahidin in the 1980s) [oops], he has no guarantee that won’t happen and is willing to take the risk. If Rogers were really, really concerned about the Jabhat al-Nusra, he wouldn’t be risking upping its firepower with Americans’ tax dollars as a justification for monitoring who your 15 year old daughter calls on her cell phone.

Let us say that again. Feinstein and Rogers just came on television to scaremonger the American people with the Syrian jihadis, and both of them voted to give the Syrian rebels millions of dollars in arms.

That’s a pretty good racket. You support the jihadis abroad and then point to jihadis abroad as the reason for which you have to get into the underwear of the American people.

Then they brought up Iraq, which is another local struggle. Dick Cheney repeatedly warned that if the US left Iraq, the terrorists created by the US Occupation (he didn’t put it that way) would follow us home. But it was never very likely an allegation. You could easily get an attack in the US by a disgruntled Sunni Iraqi. But that the Sunni Arabs of Iraq are gunning for the US? No sign of it.

Indeed, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.

And U.S. policy has lead to a world-wide increase in terrorism.

Of course, mass surveillance doesn’t really have much to do with terrorism in the first place.

No wonder Americans have such a low opinion of Congress. But people like Feinstein and Rogers couldn’t care less.

This article was posted: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 6:32 am

Directive Provides Government With Intelligence After Declaration of Martial Law

James Clapper’s directive fires up NSPD 51 providing Department of Homeland Security with ominous police state authority.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 2, 2013

A constellation of federal government intelligence agencies.

A constellation of federal government intelligence agencies.

Even in the unlikely event there is a nuclear war or some other catastrophic event, a directive issued by the director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, will make sure the NSA still listens in on your calls, that is if there are any phones or cell towers left following Armageddon.

The directive, issued on November 12, makes certain the “President, the Vice President, statutory successors, and other national leaders, as appropriate, are provided with timely, insightful, objective, and relevant national intelligence wherever they are located and in all conditions.”

Clapper’s directive sets in motion NSPD 51, which provides the Department of Homeland Security with ominous police state authority.

“The new Directive implements the Bush Administration’s 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51 on ‘National Continuity Policy.’ Presidential directives remain in force unless or until they are superseded or rescinded,” the FAS Project on Government Secrecy reported on December 2.

The directive falls under COG, or Continuity of Government, and draws on the National Security Act of 1947 (creating the current national security state and the CIA), a number of executive orders, NSPD-51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, and “other applicable provisions of law.”

COG Designed to Establish Police State Following Declaration of Martial Law

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, COG was exposed as a plan to suspend the Constitution and impose martial law in America.

According to a report published in the Miami Herald, the plan called for taking over federal, state and local government functions during a national emergency. COG, as envisioned by the National Security Council, called for “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law,” writes Peter Dale Scott.

Initially established as a response to nuclear war, COG planning underwent a critical transformation during the Reagan administration. Under Reagan, it was modified to be a police state response for any “national security emergency,” a move that was codified in Executive Order 12656.

“In other words extraordinary emergency measures, originally designed for an America devastated in a nuclear attack, were now to be applied to anything the White House considered an emergency,” writes Scott.

The Boston Globe spelled out the new parameters: “Lt. Col. Oliver North was working with officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency… to draw up a secret contingency plan to surveil political dissenters and to arrange for the detention of hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens in case of an unspecified national emergency. The plan, part of which was codenamed Rex 84, called for the suspension of the Constitution under a number of scenarios, including a U.S. invasion of Nicaragua.”

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we witnessed a FEMA beta test of the extraordinary powers under COG and Rex 84, the latter a military readiness exercise designed to round-up and intern in concentration camps dissidents and other elements considered threatening to the government.

“These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached,” the Miami Herald reported on July 5, 1987.

“And there you have it — the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law,” writes Allen L. Roland.


Rep. Jack Brooks questions COG and REX-84.

COG was implemented during the attacks of September 11, 2001, by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, two of the original planners.

“What few have recognized is that, nearly a decade later, some aspects of COG remain in effect,” Scott continues. “COG plans are still authorized by a proclamation of emergency that has been extended each year by presidential authority, most recently by President Obama in September 2009. COG plans are also the probable source for the 1000-page Patriot Act presented to Congress five days after 9/11, and also for the Department of Homeland Security’s Project Endgame — a ten-year plan, initiated in September 2001, to expand detention camps, at a cost of $400 million in Fiscal Year 2007 alone.”

Laws passed since the 9/11 attacks, including the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, and the Military Commissions Act, are designed top compliment and enhance COG operations that are more tightly focused on responding to internal dissent and palatable threats to the status quo than maintaining government cohesion after a nuclear attack.

Jerome Corsi talks about NSPD-51:

This article was posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 at 1:31 pm

 

Madison, Jefferson Vs. Obama, Reid, Pelosi on Obamacare Exemptions

William F. Jasper
The New American
November 16, 2013

Thomas Jefferson believed that “legislators ought not to stand above the law they create but ought generally to be bound by it as are ordinary persons.” So noted the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1972 decision in Gravel v. United States.

The ideas of liberty will stand forever.

The ideas of liberty will stand forever.

James Madison expounded on this principle in The Federalist, No. 57, explaining that Congress “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”

It is a principle based on plain fairness and common sense. And it is going to play a key role in the ongoing battle over ObamaCare.

Every member of Congress who voted for the deceptively named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, or ObamaCare) knows that he is facing potential political extinction in the November 2014 elections because of that vote. That means the entire lineup of Democrats in the House and Senate, with the exception of Reps. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.).

Many Democrats are desperate and are openly, vocally in revolt against the Obama White House and their party leadership. Zeke J. Miller at Time.com noted on November 14:

President Barack Obama is facing one of the toughest tests of his political life: a Democratic revolt that threatens to do irreparable harm to his signature legislative achievement.

There is plenty in the mammoth ObamaCare program to anger everyone. But perhaps one of the most troublesome issues that will plague congressional Democrats in the coming election is the matter of the controversial exemptions to ObamaCare that the Washington ruling class arranged for themselves. ObamaCare cheerleaders vehemently insist that it is wrong to call the special privileges they are receiving “exemptions.” Technically they may be correct, but substantively they are wrong. The ACA, thanks to constitutionalist and Tea Party Republican opposition, does indeed require that members of Congress and their staffs purchase healthcare insurance provided under ObamaCare. However, as we have reported in previous articles (here and here), Democrat and Republican leaders later connived with President Obama to have the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) come up with an illegal ruling that allows members of Congress and their staffs to keep the luxurious Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) “Rolls Royce” subsidy that pays for 75 percent of their premium costs. This amounts to $5,000 in subsidy for an individual plan and $11,000 for a family plan.

Members of Congress insisted that Capitol Hill would be hit with a terrible “brain drain,” as staff members would leave if they had to pay for their own health care without these subsidies. The same congressional whiners making these complaints have not shown the same concern for the tens of millions of Americans they have pushed into the same situation with the ACA. The ordinary citizen facing ObamaCare sticker shock cannot simply vote himself a fat subsidy.

This is not the first time, of course, that Congress has exempted itself from laws it imposes on the rest of us, or provided itself with special privileges. A continuing sore point with many taxpayers is the cushy pension system that Congress has bestowed on its members, in addition to the many other perks they have voted for themselves. Members of Congress become fully vested in the retirement system after only five years of “service” and receive payouts far in excess of what their constituents receive in the private sector. Only two members of Congress, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), have steadfastly stood on principle and refused to participate in the system, claiming that it is inappropriate and immoral to saddle taxpayers with the bill for this extravagant pension plan for privileged politicians.

A “Vigilant and Manly Spirit” — Madison

Congressmen Paul and Coble would, no doubt, merit the approbation of James Madison for their stands on this issue. Madison, frequently referred to as the “father” of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in The Federalist, No. 57:

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.

“Without which every government degenerates into tyranny.” That’s pretty strong. And who will argue with Madison on that point? Almost every day that passes brings new evidence that federal bureaucrats and federal politicians are becoming more and more a class of privilege and oppression, like the nomenklatura, the small, Communist Party elite that ruled the old Soviet Union and other communist states.

Madison continued in The Federalist:

If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America — a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

This article was posted: Saturday, November 16, 2013 at 11:48 am

Feds Move to Pin LAX Shooting On Patriots

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 5, 2013

The FBI will assume its traditional role as a political police force in the wake of the LAX shooting. On Monday night, the agency announced it is looking into the political beliefs of Paul Ciancia, the unemployed motorcycle mechanic who allegedly shot and killed a TSA agent last week.

Ciancia reportedly had a handwritten note with him denouncing the “New World Order,” the TSA, former Department of Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, and other government officials.

Presenting a search warrant for Ciancia’s cellphone on Monday, the FBI noted the alleged shooter’s “concerns about a New World Order.”

The resident expert on all things New World Order, the South Poverty Law Center and its spokesman, Mark Potok, have trotted out a politically charged definition of the New World Order that has been digested without comment by the establishment media.

“Ciancia’s language and references seemed to put him squarely in the conspiracy-minded world of the antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement,” the SPLC told USA Today. “The New World Order refers to a longstanding conspiracy theory that today, in its most popular iteration, claims that global elites are plotting to form a socialistic ‘one-world government’ that would crush American freedoms. Often, the root of the alleged conspiracy is traced to the 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve and the adoption of fiat currency — paper money that is not backed by gold, as it was once was in the U.S.”

Meanwhile, the establishment media is playing its role. On November 4, ABC News ran a Diane Sawyer piece on the shooting that inexplicably inserted a short clip of Alex Jones talking about the TSA. The clip was not explained. Alex Jones’ name was present in a lower third on the screen and infowars.com was displayed at the top of the screen. The insertion is clearly a brazen effort to pin blame for the shooting on the patriot movement in general and Alex Jones in particular.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press inserted an out of context reference to Infowars.com in a report about the Ciancia family.

“In the Ciancia family’s neighborhood in New Jersey, stop signs at either end of the street were adorned with stickers advertising Infowars.com, a website that discusses many of the same anti-government ideas officials said Ciancia mentioned in a hand-written note found in his bag. There was no way to tell who put the stickers on the signs,” writes Geoff Mulvihill for the establishment news wire.

The FBI has functioned as a political police force since its inception. The agency’s predecessor at the Justice Department arrested and deported anarchists in 1919 under the direction of then Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Beginning in the 1950s, the FBI began harassing and targeting the political enemies of the establishment under its COINTELPRO.

In September, the American Civil Liberties Union characterized the FBI as a “secret domestic intelligence agency” involved in violating the constitutional rights of Americans who disagree with the government.

Contact
kurt@infowars.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kurt.nimmo.1
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kurt_nimmo

This article was posted: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 at 10:40 am

 

School Test Teaches Kids: “Commands Of Government Officials Must Be Obeyed By All”

Papers produced by global education corporation; Part of ‘No Child Left Behind’ program

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Oct 29, 2013

A parent of a ten year old was shocked to discover a grammar and writing test paper that their child brought home from school reads more like document from an authoritarian country such as China.

The parent sent a portion of the test paper to Infowars, revealing that it contains sentences such as “The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.”

The paper uses such sentences and asks school children to replace certain words in order to make the sentence contain a possessive noun.

Others within the paper include:

“The job of a president is not easy.”

“He makes sure the laws of the country are fair”

“The wants of an individual are less important than the needs of a nation”

Here is the portion of the paper Infowars received:

Upon further investigation it appears that the paper is part of a set produced by Pearson Education, a global corporation that provides education publishing and assessment services to schools in the US and the rest of the world. Pearson is the world’s largest for-profit education business.

The particular sentence about everyone obeying government commands appears in other Pearson papers, such as this fifth grade grammar test.

According to the company’s Wikipedia page and its website, Pearson owns leading educational media brands including Addison–Wesley, BBC Active, Bug Club, eCollege, Fronter, Longman, MyEnglishLab, Penguin Readers, Prentice Hall, Poptropica and Financial Times Press. Pearson is part of Pearson PLC, which also owns Penguin Books and the Financial Times.

In 2010, Pearson also negotiated a 5 year, $32 million, contract with the New York State Department of Education to design tests for students in grades 4-8.

Some have criticized the company’s test papers. Last year papers designed for NYSED were found to contain over 30 errors. Writing for the New York Times, Gail Collins noted:

“We have turned school testing into a huge corporate profit center, led by Pearson, for whom $32 million is actually pretty small potatoes. Pearson has a five-year testing contract with Texas that’s costing the state taxpayers nearly half-a-billion dollars.”

Collins outlines the fact that Pearson is being contracted under the controversial No Child Left Behind program set up by the government in 2001:

“This is the part of education reform nobody told you about. You heard about accountability, and choice, and innovation. But when No Child Left Behind was passed 11 years ago, do you recall anybody mentioning that it would provide monster profits for the private business sector?”

Collins continues:

“[Pearson’s] lobbyists include the guy who served as the top White House liaison with Congress on drafting the No Child law. It has its own nonprofit foundation that sends state education commissioners on free trips overseas to contemplate school reform.”

Ah… all becomes clear. Government contracted education papers telling children that they must obey the commands of the government. Nice.

Along with enforcing government mandated rules such as banning packed lunches, this will be seen by many as yet another example of how the nanny state is encroaching via the public education system.

It’s a concept also being promoted by the mass media. Earlier this year, MSNBC ran a segment pushing the notion that kids belong to the “collective,” and that the “idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families” should be eliminated.

These revelations also remind one of Common Core, federally mandated education principles, which are effectively dumbing down students by standardizing education across the board and shutting out diversity in teaching.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

This article was posted: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 at 1:24 pm

20 Drills that Prove the DHS’ Official New Enemy is the American People

Kim M.
Planet Infowars
October 28, 2013

Drills for the Combat Marksmanship Program at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Drills for the Combat Marksmanship Program at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Out of 47 “scenarios” being practiced by first responders during Urban Shield 2013 this October 25 – 28 in the San Francisco Bay Area, at least 20 of them are “domestic” – either stated explicitly, or implied (see below in BOLD CAPS) – and possibly more.

Overall, the scenarios vary widely in scope – up to and including “odor investigation” – but the “domestic terrorists” are generally characterized as being anything from “anarchists” (Tea Partiers? Christians? Patriots?) to “homegrown” terrorists (recent American-Moslem converts duped into FBI-sting operations?)

Interesting to note that, as of this writing, the English “Urban Shield” Wikipedia entry has disappeared… but you can still get it in French. (Too bad for you if you don’t read French.)

However, there is still a brief mention of Urban Shield in the English Wikipedia entry for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ASCO).

According to Wikipedia’s ASCO entry, Urban Shield is the largest urban “SWAT” exercise in America. Always held in autumn, it provides “opportunities” for first-responder teams from all over the nation to train in what appears to be mostly “terrorist” scenarios.

(As an aside – since I scan the news feeds daily – I’ve been noticing variations of ALL these “scenarios” making the news on a regular basis, including recently locking down an entire school district in Richmond, California due to an “odor investigation”… for an odor which turned out to be from a smelly barge starting its engine several miles outside the city limits. Oh, the hysteria.)

You should also be pleased and comforted to note that among the many “public/private partners” (and corporate sponsors) taking part in this year’s Urban Shield will be the Boy Scouts, FedEx and Verizon Wireless.

And, in addition to the 18 federal agencies listed (including Louisiana State University?), there will also be 12 foreign countries keeping us safe from domestic terrorists: Israel, Brazil, Guam, Israeli Yamam, Norway, Switzerland, France, Jordan, Bahrain, Singapore, Canada and Qatar.

With all this “help” – in what is turning out to be a huge multi-billion dollar industry – it makes you wonder who is keeping us safe from the “helpers?”

Scenario #1: Fitness Assessment/Confidence Course
Scenario #2: Medical Checkpoint #1
SCENARIO #3: INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE RECONNAISSANCE
Tactical teams will be provided a scenario in which they must rescue a judge from a Homegrown Violent Extremists group. Teams will be tested on their ability to develop a plan of action.
Host: Alameda County Sheriff’s Office – Black Command
Location: Alameda County Firearms Training Facility
Sponsors: TCI Tactical Command Industries
Fulcrum Concepts LLC
ZMB Industries
Zistos Portable Video Systems
SCENARIO #4: COLLEGE CAMPUS HOSTAGE RESCUE
Tactical teams will be evaluated on their ability to transition between many different tactics based on a rapidly evolving, dynamic scenario.
Host: Livermore Police Department – Black Command
Location: Las Positas Community College
Sponsor: VieVu-Video Cameras
SCENARIO #5: SWAT & K9 INTEGRATION DURING DEPLOYMENT
Tactical teams will coordinate with K9 units to search a rural wooded area for suspected narco-terrorists who recently murdered one CHP officer and wounded another.
Host: Alameda County Sheriff’s Office – Black Command
Location: Del Valle Regional Park Property
Sponsor: None listed
SCENARIO #6: HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS ASSAULT
Tactical teams will properly respond to a terrorist attack at a school, testing their ability to operate under fire, and rescue hostages.
Host: Fremont Police Department – Gold Command
Location: Coyote Hills Shooting Range, Fremont
Sponsor: 5.11 Tactical Series
TCI Tactical Command Industries
SCENARIO #7: ANARCHIST REFINERY BOMBER
Teams are presented with a scenario testing their ability to operate in a large open area and minimize damage to critical infrastructure.
Host: Redwood City Police Department – Silver Command
Location: Port of Redwood City
Sponsor: Digital Sandbox
Scenario #8: Water Treatment Facility WMD Attack
SCENARIO #9: DOMESTIC TERRORIST WATERSHED TAKEOVER
Tactical teams will be evaluated on their ability to respond to a chemical attack while mitigating further terrorist activity and rescuing hostages.
Host: San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office – Silver Command
Location: Crystal Springs Reservoir
Sponsor: Fraser Optics
Scenario #10: Medical Checkpoint #2
SCENARIO #11: HIGH RISK SEARCH WARRANT
Tactical teams will be presented with a scenario to work in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to successfully execute a buy-bust search warrant.
Host: Drug Enforcement Agency – Silver Command
Location: Simunitions Training Warehouse, South San Francisco
Sponsor: None listed
SCENARIO #12: COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTER TAKEOVER
Teams are provided a scenario testing their ability to work in a confined area under duress.
Host: San Francisco Sheriff’s Department – Green Command
Location: San Bruno Jail Complex
Sponsor: Securus Technologies
ATK Force On Force
SCENARIO #13: EXTREMIST MANHUNT
Tactical teams will respond to violent terrorist(s) who have gunned down an undercover agent and taken hostages.
Host: San Francisco Sheriff’s Department – Green Command
Location: San Bruno Jail Complex
Sponsor: Securus Technologies
ATK Force On Force
Scenario #14: Terrorist Attack on Public Transit
SCENARIO #15: TRANSAMERICA PYRAMID CENTER TAKEOVER
This scenario was developed to test tactical teams response to a homegrown terrorist attack on a San Francisco high rise building.
Host: San Francisco Sheriff’s Department – Green Command
Location: Transamerica Pyramid Center
Sponsor: Digital Sandbox
Scenario #16: Human Trafficking Interdiction
Scenario #17: Medical Checkpoint #3
Scenario #18: Laboratory Takeover
Scenario #19: Parking Structure WMD Dispersal Device
Scenario #20: Critical Infrastructure Assault (SF-Oakland Bay Bridge)
Scenario #21: Commuter Train Assault
Scenario #22: Maritime Interdiction
Scenario #23: Military Installation Assault
Scenario #24: Airplane Hijacking
Scenario #25: Medical Checkpoint #4
Scenario #26: Vehicle Assault (Old Mervyn’s Headquarters)
Scenario #27: Dignitary Rescue
Scenario #28: High Rise Rappelling
Scenario #29: Chemical Sabotage
SCENARIO #30: DOMESTIC TERRORIST SCHOOL TAKEOVER
Tactical teams will be provided an active shooter scenario testing their ability to effectively engage the terrorist(s) and effect a rescue of the hostage(s).
Host: Alameda County Sheriff’s Office – Blue Command
Location: Canyon Middle School, Castro Valley
Sponsor: Black OPS Airsoft
Applanix A Trimble Company
Scenario #31: Hospital Assault
Scenario #32: Technology Showcase
EOD Scenario #1: Explosive Ordnance Disposal Response 1
EOD Scenario #2: Explosive Ordnance Disposal Response 2
EOD SCENARIO #3: EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL RESPONSE 3
Two teams work together to enter a booby trapped apartment, render safe a number of booby traps, and analyze chemicals present for their use in IEDs.
Host: Alameda County Sheriff’s Office – Black Command
Location: Alameda County EOD Bomb Range
Sponsor: HazMasterG3
FIRE SCENARIO #1: ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORIST SABOTAGE
Responding US&R task force teams will be confronted with multiple and conflicting priorities while freeing two trapped construction workers.
Host: South San Francisco Fire Department – Red Command
Location: South San Francisco Fire Department Trench Rescue Training Site
Sponsor: MES Municipal Emergency Services Inc.
FIRE SCENARIO #2: IED EXPLOSION IN A CONFINED SPACE
An IED placed in a refinery pipe maze by environmental terrorists is accidentally detonated by bomb squad personnel while attempting to render the device safe.
Host: South San Francisco Fire Department – Red Command
Location: South San Francisco Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Facility
Sponsor: FoxFury Personal Lighting Solutions
FIRE SCENARIO #3: BUILDING COLLAPSE
A member of the Sovereign Citizen movement has driven a truck into a government building which resulted in a partial building collapse and fire.
Host: South San Francisco Fire Department – Red Command
Location: South San Francisco Fire Department Collapse Structure Training Facility
Sponsor: Parrot AR Drone
FIRE SCENARIO #4: HIGH-ANGLE RESCUE
The sniper attack on a government high-rise building by a Homegrown Violent Extremist (HVE) has left two window washers injured.
Host: South San Francisco Fire Department – Red Command
Location: Boston Properties, South San Francisco
Sponsor: None listed
FIRE SCENARIO #5 AND 11: COOPERATIVE USAR/HAZMAT RESPONSE
US&R and Hazmat task-force teams will cooperatively respond to a car bomb detonated by extremists that has resulted in a collapse of a medical research facility.
Host: South San Francisco Fire Department – Red Command
Location: Alexandria Development Building, South San Francisco
Sponsor: Western Shelter Systems
Grainger
Applanix A Trimble Company
Fire Scenario #6: Terrorist Bus Hijacking/Low-Angle Rescue
FIRE SCENARIO #7: CLANDESTINE DRUG LAB EXPLOSION
An explosion of an IED at a clandestine drug lab has resulted in members of a SWAT team and other first responders becoming contaminated with unknown chemicals.
Host: South San Francisco Fire Department – Red Command
Location: South San Francisco Vehicle and Equipment Mainenance Facility
Sponsor: None listed
Fire Scenario #8: Odor Investigation
Fire Scenario #9: Cargo Container Sabotage
FIRE SCENARIO #10: MONITORING/DETECTION DIRTY BOMB ATTACK
Members of an anarchist group have detonated a dirty bomb in the mail room of a credit card processing facility, resulting in exposure to employees.
Host: South San Francisco Fire Department – Red Command
Location: Boston Properties, South San Francisco
Sponsor: MES Municipal Emergency Services Inc.
Fire Scenario #12: Arson Fire

SOURCES:

http://www.urbanshield.org

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ blogs/ on-leadership/ wp/ 2013/ 10/ 11/ the-tea-party-is-giving-anarchism-a-bad-name/

http://www.examiner.com/article/another-terrorism-report-demonizes-christian-patriots-preppers

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1341/the-creeping-homegrown-threat

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-are-feds-cultivating-their-own.html

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_shield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_County_Sheriff%27s_Office

http://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/

http://publicintelligence.net/alameda-urban-shield-2013/

http://info.publicintelligence.net/AlamedaCountyUrbanShield2013.pdf

http://www.contracostatimes.com/west-county-times/ci_24267003/richmond-residents-report-strong-gas-odor

http://www.contracostatimes.com/west-county-times/ci_24276573/gas-smell-that-enveloped-richmond-came-from-disabled

This post appeared in the U.S. News category.

This article was posted: Monday, October 28, 2013 at 10:45 am

%d bloggers like this: