Active Denial System

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.”

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 entire 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 in Active Denial Mode

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

This is the future home for STARpod.org investigations of government cover-ups and black projects.