Active Denial System

Russia in denial over U.N. Syria chemical weapons report, more trouble from NSA spying revelations

2013-09-18T08:13:00.001-07:00

CBS News reports:

"Russia all but dismissed Wednesday a report by United Nations weapons inspectors who visited the Damascus suburbs to investigate the facts surrounding an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack, and said Syria had handed over evidence allegedly showing it was rebel forces who carried out the attack.

Read the full story at CBS News

The Guardian reports:

Brazilian president postpones Washington visit over NSA spying ... Dilma Rousseff snubs Barack Obama, saying planned visit cannot take place 'in the absence of a timely investigation'

Read the full story at The Guardian

Will Eric Holder guarantee NSA reporters' first amendment rights? The US attorney general vows not to prosecute journalists, but his criminalisation of whistle-blowers undermines that assurance

Read the full story at The Guardian

NSA "neither confirm nor deny" spying on STARstream Research

2013-09-15T08:12:00.001-07:00

(Active Denial System) -- The American Nation Security Agency (NSA) has responded to a Freedom of Information request seeking information about NSA data collection on STARstream Research and founder Gary S. Bekkum.

"To the extent that your request seeks any information on you in relation to NSA intelligence programs, or in relation to any specific methods or means for conducting the programs, we cannot acknowledge the existence or non-existence of such information."

View pages from the letter we received from NSA at STARpod.us

NSA pickup lines

2013-08-26T20:09:00.003-07:00

Love is never having to say you're sorry you didn't get a warrant. #NSAPickUpLines
— Kathleen McClellan (@Kath_McClellan) August 25, 2013

In the News: Cyber Espionage

2012-07-24T20:42:00.002-07:00

Russia Today reports "the government is spying on every single American" based upon the testimony of NSA whistle-blowers.

On an interview carried on Current TV’s Viewpoint program on Monday, former NSA Technical Director William Binney commented on the state of blanketing surveillance along with colleagues Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, the agency's former senior official and senior analyst, respectively.

And over at the Wired Danger Room, Noah Shachtman looks into the Soviet-era intelligence background of Russian cyber-security expert Eugene Kaspersky, the man behind the company that discovered the cyber-war software STUXNET and FLAME.

Kaspersky has 300 million customers. His geek squad uncovers US cyberweapons. And he has deep ties to the KGB’s successors in Moscow.

Washington Post Looks at US Government Abuse of Classification System

2012-07-22T10:17:00.002-07:00

A potential witness for the senior NSA offical Thomas A. Drake espionage case defense, J. William Leonard, the government’s former classification czar, told the Washington Post that the system used by the U.S. government is “becoming dysfunctional” and “clearly lacks the ability to differentiate between trivial information and that which can truly damage our nation’s well-being.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE WASHINGTON POST

American Justice: Tom Drake, Whistle Blower

2011-09-21T16:18:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from the sentencing transcript of Thomas A. Drake, former senior NSA official, by The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge:

I think the average American is entitled to know when their home is searched after a month, two months, three months, six months, hire a lawyer. I think at some point in time that the average citizen when their home is searched, which is a pretty ... a pretty extreme experience for those who have experienced it, to have someone arrive at the crack of dawn and knock on the door and come through and inventory all the items in your home. I would think the average American after two years is entitled to know what the status of the case is.

As to the personal history and characteristics and nature and circumstances of this offense, I will note as to the nature and circumstances of the offense, Mr. Drake, that the overall scenario here is troubling. The fact that I have clearly been critical of the government and the lack of explanation for the time period and the fact that you're the only one charged, it certainly takes away from the gravitas of the case.

So the implications on any kind of classified information involving issues of national security are very, very important and should not be ignored. From the smallest case to the most severe case, it is a very, very delicate matter. And you of all people are clearly aware of that in terms of your personal history and your military service to this country, a total of 15 years both active duty and reserve, as well as eight years at the National Security Agency. So you're very well aware of the sensitivity of all of this, so anything involving classified material, anything involving protected material, anything involving material that we dealt with over days and days with the secured hearings that were classified here in the closed courtroom were obviously very, very significant and weigh on the thoughts of the court.

Having said that, your personal history and characteristics are commendable. You've served in the U.S. Air Force. You've served in the Navy Reserves. You've served your country in a very significant way in terms of working for the NSA, a very important agency in the lives of our country, particularly since September 11, and you have served well. So this whole matter is really a tragedy and you definitely did exercise very poor judgment.

But having said that, when I look at the matter of whether it's necessary to protect the public from further crimes of you, that's obviously not the case, and Mr. Welch hasn't tried to argue that it is. But in terms of deterrence, what you have gone through in and of itself would deter anyone who thinks they can lightly take information from a government computer and in any way set out on their own path. The irony here is is that you set out on the correct path initially and followed the protocols and contacted the appropriate congressional committees. The public needs to understand that there are ways that whistle blowers from government agencies can proceed, including with classified information and going to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other matters.

Denied Access? CIA Director left in the dark for five months

2009-07-10T10:13:00.001-07:00

The next time you wonder who is really in control of the government's darkest secrets, consider how long it took for the DCI -- the Director of National Intelligence -- to learn about a secret covert program at his own agency.

We've heard tales that the President of the United States remains off the "need to know list" of UFO and paranormal secret projects, but what about the directors of America's intelligence agencies? Are they being deliberately left in the dark to hide special access compartmentalized intelligence?

In this story published by the Associated Press, it is reported:

CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a "very serious" covert program the spy agency kept secret from Congress for eight years, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, said Friday.

Democrats revealed late Tuesday that CIA Director Leon Panetta had informed members of the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 that the spy agency had been withholding important information about a secret intelligence program begun after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Schakowsky described Panetta as "stunned" that he had not been informed of the program until nearly five months into his tenure as director.

Panetta had learned of the program only the day before informing the lawmakers, according to a U.S. intelligence official.

Lee Graham's UFO FOIA and "Fireball Data Flap"

2009-07-07T09:16:00.001-07:00

Space.com has been following a story directly related to the USAF "neither confirm nor deny" response to Lee Graham's Freedom of Information Request.

Graham very specifically asked for DSP satellite results which would confirm or deny detection of "manufactured extraterrestrial" objects, i.e. alien spacecraft.

The USAF response was a flat "we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information you have requested" as "the existence or non-existence of records" would "reveal a connection or interest in the matters" which is "classified."

"By this statement, the Department of the Air Force neither confirms nor denies that such records may or may not exist."

That, my friends, is your government, forced by the FOIA to issue the ultimate cop-out response.

Now, as reported by Space.com, the lock down on information about US space satellite detection capabilities is being tightened considerably.

Leonard David writes:

Digging in on this story is not easy. Military higher-ups and the agencies involved are guarded about how potent their satellite sensors are as they stare at Earth for nuclear detonations, missile launches and the like.

In a new exclusive interview with SPACE.com, U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Rego, who is in charge of the policy guidance behind the data release, said the Air Force Space Command is "circling the wagons" to close some loopholes in the dissemination of potentially sensitive information.

According to Lee Graham, some of the evidence detected by DSP satellite provides firm evidence of the entry of extraterrestiral objects under intelligent control.

Space.com explains the purpose of the DSP satellite, and why it is considered so sensitive:

The system also spots incoming fireballs, even gauging the energy released as an extraterrestrial piece of flotsam explodes in our atmosphere. That information can yield scientific insight, such as the object's mass as its brightness fades as it falls. A sensor-derived light curve can offer important information about how the object decelerated when it struck the atmosphere, and thereby yield implications about its strength too.

But it is also the sort of info that seems to be at the crux of military worries, forcing a "secret" stamp of disapproval in terms of freely posting this kind of light curve data for all to see.

I recommend reading the entire article, which is available here.

USAF to Lee Graham: UFOs? Air Force can "neither confirm nor deny"

2009-05-25T12:50:00.001-07:00

The USAF must consider Lee Graham a thorn in their side.

Graham has been sending numerous Fredom of Information Act requests to the Air Force since the 1980s, mostly on the topic of extraterrestrial objects and their detection by a US satellite.

Recently Graham has been forwarding copies of his latest FOIA requests and the response from various government offices to STARstream Research, where they have been dutifully logged, copied and filed for the record.

I retrieved the latest package from Graham this past weekend. Graham's latest FOIA request concerns the detection of UFOs of an extraterrestrial origin by the DSP satellite, which Graham claims is capable of distinguishing controlled extraterrestrial vehicles from man-made objects and natural phenomena.

So did the USAF deny the alleged extraterrestrial nature of UFO incidents that were the subject of Graham's request?

No. They did not.

Instead of offering "no records found" or outright denying an extraterrestrial presence, the Air Force used the government equivalent of pleading the fifth amendment, the so-called "Glomar response."

The existence or nonexistence of records which would reveal a connection or interest in the matters relating to those set forth in your request is classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958. Therefore, persuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552(b)(1), your request is denied. By this statement, the Department of the Air Force neither confirms nor denies that such records may or may not exist.

Click on the image above for a closer look at the final determination given to Mr. Graham when he appealed the USAF denial of his FOIA request.

MJ12 and MAJIC: RU debunked, yet?

2009-05-13T11:32:00.000-07:00

RU debunked?

A picture is worth a thousand words ... and so are the pictures from real formerly classified documents, shown here with a handful of elements from the alleged MJ-12 TOP SECRET/MAJIC Eisenhower Briefing Document.

And make a mental note of the / following TOP SECRET: you'll find the slash followed by special caveats on documents from collections culled from the National Security Council. Many of those documents are classified by personal signature (see the larger image by clicking on it).

After reading the following list by a gentleman at RU claiming to be in the know because of his present-day clearance, take a good look at the image above and see if you can spot the few MAJIC markings against the real ones taken from handfuls of FOIA documents from different sources. At the end I incuded a few from the UK Ministry of Defence.

Among the claims made by the Reality Uncovered debunkers are:

1) Originally-classifed documents do NOT use the "TOP SECRET" with a block of asterisks around it as the original classification markings. That is so far off the rules that govern classification markings as to be laughable.

2) Because of these original classification marking rules, there is NEVER any need for a stamp such as that seen on this document saying "TOP SECRET/MAJIC".

3) The moniker "MAJIC" has a fundamental flaw with respect to rules of project codes names. I cannot give details but anyone who knows project code names knows what it is.

4) There is no "(U)" or "(C)" or "(S)" or "(TS)" portion marking on the "Warning" paragraph. There must be if it were real.

5) The very use of the term "WARNING!" in a classification statement is incorrect and laughable. The terms "WARNING" and "CAUTION" have VERY specific definitions and uses, especially in the military world. These relate to the potential for damage and/or bodily injury and/or the potential for death. The potential for litigation and/or criminal actions against you do NOT rise to the level of a CAUTION and certainly not a WARNING. These are just not used in classified data markings.

6) "TOP SECRET" is a used term, but not "EYES ONLY". That is never used. Now, it MAY be used in UK MOD, but I would not know and it would not matter to a US doc.

7) Any piece of information that was legitimately and originally classified (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) will NEVER be stamped with merely an "UNCLASSIFIED" stamp. It MUST have "downgrade information" attached to show when it was reviewed and downgraded and for what reason. Always. If the "UNCLASSIFIED T52-EXEMPT (E)" stamp is a real artifact from the US GOV (and it could be), then my hunch is that this stamp is basically telling anyone "this stuff never was classified" and the "T52-EXEMPT" could even specify something like "this is a hoax, and not GOV document"... Dunno that for sure.

8. The final statement about "reproduction" and the rest is flat-out wrong. Reproduction IS permitted on all levels of classified data, but under strict rules. Anything TOP SECRET that is reproduced gets it own unique control number for each copy. There are other aspects with respect to this that I cannot discuss.

9) "Majestic-12 clearance level" is also an amateurish misuse of terminology with respect to clearance levels. One's clearance level is never specifically attached to a project/program. Hence, you would never have a named clearance level with a program name. That causes many problems, which I cannot discuss. But should be easy for an intelligent person to figure out.

UPDATE 7-15-2009

Check out this link for a CIA 1954 document with a date using this style 08 APR 54

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000916553/0000916553_0001.gif

The Torture of Declassified Documents

2009-05-06T14:20:00.000-07:00

While most of the media has been reporting on CIA torture memos, recently declassified, I have been tortured by browsing pages of 'virtually' musty old government documents forced into the open by the Freedom of Information Act.

A mild interest in uncovering the design behind the so-called MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing Document (EBD) drove me to spend hours of valuable time in the government's various "electronic reading rooms" as I searched for anything resembling the document.

Here are a few links:

http://www.archives.gov/

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945-50Intel/d320

http://foia.fbi.gov/

What I learned had little to do with MJ-12.

In fact, it left me questioning the purpose behind the entire classification process.

For years the government appears to have been ready to "mark" nearly anything with various official classification levels, including CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET.

One of the EYES-ONLY aspects of looking back to the 1950s era was the dramatic difference between the modern day government markings and those in place during the peak of the "flying saucer" invasion.

Sometimes I found SECRET, others S-E-C-R-E-T and other times the classification was boxed in by dashes. The MJ EBD features TOP SECRET surround by asterisks.

I also found the incorrect useage of a comma in the date line in a document issued by the White House in the same month as the date on the EBD. One of the earliest critcisms of the EBD was the superfluous comma.

Mostly I learned how quickly the government search engines can frustrate the simplest quest.

On a positive note I did see that CIA has been busy releasing more material, including several documents about the UFO question.

ABC NEWS: Did NSA Lie, Cover-Up? Senators Open Second Probe

2008-10-13T15:50:00.000-07:00

ABC NEWS is reporting:

The Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee have opened a second Congressional investigation into the ABC News report that US intelligence personnel eavesdropped, recorded and stored the private, personal phone calls of American journalists, aid workers and soldiers serving in Iraq.

Separately, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), has ordered his staff to begin its own investigation.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6022108&page=1

National Geographic Examines Government Deception

2008-09-29T18:10:00.000-07:00

National Geographic examines government deception:

It's the height of the Cold War and the United States government is desperate to combat the spread of Communism. The CIA launches a highly classified, top secret research program into the covert use of biological and chemical agents. In simulated attacks on enemy populations, entire cities in America are contaminated with bacteria, exposing millions of Americans to germ warfare. But the real focus of the research is on mastering the art of mind control. Psychiatrists at top academic institutions work under secret contract with the agency.

Psychiatric patients, prisoners, even unwitting members of the public are exposed to a startling array of experiments designed to facilitate interrogations, induce amnesia and program in new behavior. Every psychological technique is explored, including hypnosis, electroshock therapy and lethal cocktails of drugs. What was the extent of these brainwashing experiments? How did the CIA become involved in such far-reaching and disturbing research?

Join us as National Geographic presents: CIA Secret Experiments.

That was then, but what about today?

Check out this post from WIRED's Danger Room:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/medics-slam-dru.html

Quote of the Day

2007-12-17T09:25:00.000-08:00

“The intelligence community cannot go it alone,” Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed article Monday urging Congress to pass the immunity provision. “Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits.”

Read the full opinion piece by Mike McConnell ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Today's Active Denials

2007-10-10T14:28:00.000-07:00

SOURCE: National Journal ...

DNI Launches Probe Into Bin Laden Video Leak

Yesterday's revelations that the September leak of an intercepted Osama bin Laden video prompted al-Qaida to close a loophole that allowed surveillance on the group have sparked an official inquiry.

A Washington, D.C.-based private firm that monitors al-Qaida communications, SITE Intelligence Group, had secretly gotten a copy of the video and shared it with the White House. Within hours, SITE argues, multiple government agencies had downloaded the video and it was all over the media -- leaked from the government sources.

SOURCE: White House website ...

Question: Fran, can I just follow up a little bit on that, and I think Dana said this morning the leak did not come from the White House. How do you know that?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, we do know that the -- we understand that within -- God knows, we'll learn more as time goes on, but I understand that the link to the SITE was provided to the intelligence community, and the concern was that that link is the piece that -- was the thing that was made public. So, as I say, I mean, obviously, I'm not -- we here at the White House are unable to conduct an investigation, and I leave this to the Director of National Intelligence to ascertain what's the appropriate way of dealing with this and understanding what happened, so we can ensure it doesn't happen again.

SOURCE: Washington Post ...

A German man who says he was abducted and tortured by the CIA as part of the anti-terrorism rendition program lost his final chance Tuesday to persuade U.S. courts to hear his claims.

The Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal from Khaled el-Masri, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if courts allowed the case to proceed.

The U.S. government has neither confirmed nor denied el-Masri's account and, in urging the court not to hear the case, said that the facts central to el-Masri's claims "concern the highly classified methods and means of the program."

Is the Internet the True Universal Solvent?

2007-10-09T07:10:00.000-07:00

The Internet is rapidly breaking down the barriers between citizen journalists and professional news organizations -- and, in some cases, intelligence agencies -- at least when it comes to sources and methods.

The dissolving barrier between who is and is not a journalist is embroiled in the debate over The Free Flow of Information Act , more popularly known as "The Reporter's Shield Law."

According to the Washington Post, "While the proposal has progressed much further in Congress than past efforts, it is far from a sure thing and continues to draw opposition, at least in its current form, from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)."

I can think of at least one official working under the DNI who should have good reason to be interested in a couple of our sources. The Washington Post story addresses an issue directly relevant to the authors and sources of the STARpod.org Blog-Net:

One of the biggest issues is just who is a journalist, or in the phrase the bill uses, a 'covered person.' Once that definition is clarified -- and even Judiciary members say it's not settled -- a journalist would under most circumstances not have to disclose to federal authorities or in civil lawsuits the identity of sources who have been promised confidentiality. Also protected will be records, communications, documents or other information that this 'covered person' receives from confidential sources, as well as notes the journalist makes of conversations with these sources.

How does the FFIA define a blogger? According to an analysis of the law provided by ASNE :

(2) COVERED PERSON. – The term ‘‘covered person’’ means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

This section is meant to apply the protections of the Act to any person engaged in journalism” (defined in subsection (5), below). The term “person” is defined by preexisting statute to “include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” 1 U.S.C. § 1. Thus, the Act would apply to all forms of media that provide information to the public, including newspapers, magazines, book publishers, television networks and stations, cable and satellite networks, channels and programming services, news agencies and wire services.
In addition, the Act would apply to web logs (“blogs”) that engage in journalism.

(5) JOURNALISM. – The term “journalism” means the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

The definition of “journalism” is intended to afford the protections of the Act to any person engaged in any phase of the journalistic process, from gathering news and information to writing, editing, and publishing news and information. The inclusion of the term “or information” is intended to include within the ambit of the Act such media as newsletters and wire services that disseminate information not necessarily encompassed by the term “news.” On the other hand, the definition is intended to be limited by the term “…that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.”

Thus, the Act would provide no protection to a person who gathers information with the intention of using it to gain private advantage, rather than disseminate it to the public. If the recipient of a leak is a spy, a terrorist, or a company intending to exploit leaks from a competitor, the Act will not afford any protection to that person.
The new FISA definitions also include as agents of a foreign power anyone who "is reasonably expected to possess, control, transmit or receive foreign intelligence information while such person is in the United States."

For more about this issue, see my editorial commentary, "Spies Like Us."

Breaking News: U.S. Considered Use of Radiological Weapons for Assassination

2007-10-08T14:21:00.000-07:00

Associated Press is breaking a story that the United States Army considered the use of radiological poisons as weapons of assassination:

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the U.S. Army explored the potential for using radioactive poisons to assassinate "important individuals" such as military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.

A memo released to AP describes the advantages of radiological attacks, and the methods required to avoid culpability:

The Dec. 16, 1948, memo said a lethal attack against individuals using radiological material should be done in a way that makes it impossible to trace the U.S. government's involvement, a concept known as "plausible deniability" that is central to U.S. covert actions.

"The source of the munition, the fact that an attack has been made, and the kind of attack should not be determinable, if possible," it said. "The munition should be inconspicuous and readily transportable."

Radioactive agents were thought to be ideal for this use, the document said, because of their high toxicity and the fact that the targeted individuals could not smell, taste or otherwise sense the attack.

Read the full story here.

Is Bush in Active Denial? From Torture to Pain Ray

2007-10-05T21:02:00.000-07:00

According to Voice of America, President Bush is denying that "the United States is preparing to attack Iran because of its nuclear program."

"President Bush has dismissed as 'baseless gossip' suggestions that the United States is preparing to attack Iran because of its nuclear program."
Another VOA story reports that "President Bush is defending his administration against reports that it authorized harsher techniques to interrogate suspected terrorists than it has previously acknowledged."

"This government does not torture people. We stick to U.S. law and our international obligations," he said.

Mr. Bush said highly trained professionals are responsible for interrogating suspected terrorists, and, he says, that questioning has revealed information that has prevented possible attacks.

Bottom line: When it comes to the war on terror, interrogation methods will be determined by the authority that decides how the word "torture" is to be interpreted.

Apparently torture does not include "head slapping, simulated drowning and exposure to extreme temperatures," according to a 2005 ruling by the Justice Department.

I wonder how the Justice Department would interpret the use of the Active Denial System to interrogate prisoners .

The Active Denial System, which is commonly known as the "pain ray," uses microwaves to induce an intense burning sensation in the skin.

The Active Denial System page at Wikipedia notes that "although the stated intent of the ADS is to be a non-lethal device designed to temporarily incapacitate, easy modifications or incorrect use by the operator could turn the ADS into a torture device that would violate international conventions on warfare."

"Or not."

Our Government is in Active Denial Mode

2007-10-05T12:08:00.000-07:00

This is the future home for STARstream Research STARpod.org investigations of government whistle-blowers, denials, cover-ups and black projects.