This is a good start for GUN PUBLIC POLICY as 99% US WE THE PEOPLE watch all of our US, state, and local public military, state guard, and local policing and security with BUSH/OBAMA having staged militarized policing and equipment sent to our local towns and cities.
Seth Moulton says he’ll consider hiring Andrew McCabe to save his pension - The Boston Globe
On Twitter, Seth Moulton said he would consider hiring the fired FBI deputy director to save his pension after two decades of work in the bureau. McCabe was fired days…
We have discussed often the concerns of public policy creating a consolidated privatized monopoly of US secret societies like the FBI, CIA, DIA-----the public policy created during CLINTON ERA 1990s soared during BUSH ERA----sent sky-high during OBAMA ERA MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL MILITARY SECURITY for all Foreign Economic Zones. We know the US FBI is being defunded and employees enfolded into CIA because FBI is a FEDERAL NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY at a time when US Federal structures are being dismantled and replaced by international security, policing, and secret societies. These are the secret agencies having powers of covert/overt activities dealing with GUNS ----whether global gun cartels or local civil unrest.
WHEN WE ALLOW SECRET MILITARIZED SOCIETIES BECOME EXPANDED 99% OF US WE THE PEOPLE LOSE ALL RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND PATHWAY TO JUSTICE.
We also are exposing our US local cities and towns to lots of GUN and private military policing whose policies are written by global banking 1%.
We also are exposing our US local cities and towns to lots of GUN and private military policing whose policies are written by global banking 1%. This article written in 2003--Bush-era as concerns by US 99% soared with these policies.
WE WILL DISCUSS THE GUN POLICY GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM FIRST ---JUST REMINDING OF CONCERNS OF CONSOLIDATION, PRIVATIZATION, AND EXPANSION OF THESE SECRET SOCIETIES.
Public, Private Sectors Piece Together Homeland Security Efforts
By Henry S. Kenyon and Maryann Lawlor
About the Author
In the 18 months following the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government has undergone a series of structural changes. At the state and federal levels, efforts are underway to enhance communications and information-sharing infrastructures among agencies and other organizations. Public institutions also have reached out to the private sector to form partnerships designed to protect vital national infrastructures.
The creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security brings together 22 government agencies. The need to coordinate this undertaking and the opportunities presented by this shift across all sectors were discussed at AFCEA International’s second homeland security conference titled “Securing America: Challenge and Opportunity,” held February 26-27 at the Ronald Regan International Trade Center, Washington, D.C.
The conference’s first speaker, Mark Holman, public policy adviser, Blank Rome Government Relations LLC, detailed some of the ways the world and government have changed since the terrorist attacks. Holman, who is the former deputy assistant to the president for homeland security, said establishing the Transportation Security Administration was a key step toward travel safety. However, he pointed out that creating the organization has been more like building a ship at sea than like turning a ship at sea.
Other changes include revising the student visa system, designating immediate funding for first-responder support and creating a new mission statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Collaboration has increased among law enforcement agencies. Information sharing between the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is much better than it has been historically, and intelligence is moving both horizontally and vertically in these organizations, Holman stated.
James Champy, chairman of Perot Systems Corporation’s consulting practice, and corporate vice president, shared suggestions about how to make the government reorganization under the Homeland Security Department a success. During the morning’s second speech, Champy said that the same principles governing successful corporate mergers apply to government agencies.
“Leaders need to create a new value to everyone involved. No one will come to the table unless there is something in it for them,” Champy said. “In the past, when companies have cut personnel, the people left have a sense of burden, not exhilaration. As the Department of Homeland Security is formed, there will be consolidation, but there can’t be a sense of burden.”
Three principles must guide reorganization, he said. First, thinking must shift toward transparency when information is involved. Rather than protecting all information and deciding what to share, organizations must think in terms of sharing all information then choosing carefully what data must be kept secret. Standardization, the second principle, is paramount. “If we standardize the right stuff, it frees up time to focus on real issues,” Champy stated.
Harmonization in processes is the third basic principle that must guide reorganization. Businesses or government agencies must be interoperable at a high level, which means agreeing to follow a single set of processes, he said.
The conference’s first panel featured representatives from the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency (NSA), who were forthcoming about past and present problems. Larry Castro, coordinator for homeland security support, NSA, offered that the barrier between law enforcement and intelligence agencies primarily is the result of their vastly different cultures. While law enforcement preserves information flow, intelligence-gathering groups are concerned about protecting sources and methods.
John Pistole, deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, FBI, pointed out that the PATRIOT Act greatly facilitates information sharing, and today a triage is performed on data to determine the seriousness of a threat. However, adequate technology is still not in place to share information as quickly as possible.
Panelists agreed that a community strategy for sharing information has not yet been established. The Homeland Security Department will provide the required leadership to accomplish this task. In the interim, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a joint project between the FBI and CIA, acts as an analytical forum to allow collaboration, and center personnel can reach into NSA resources.
Speaking at Wednesday’s luncheon, Don Peterson, chief executive officer, Avaya Incorporated, said communications are central for preparedness and crisis response, and it is the commercial sector’s responsibility to protect the infrastructure. Customers and vendors must work together to create solid networks, he offered. Systems must be located in disparate places and be capable of handling balanced communications loads. The problems encountered on September 11, 2001, demonstrated that too many systems were at their full capacity; backup was not created; and contingency plans are necessary, he added.
Peterson offered suggestions to government agencies for the future. “Don’t reinvent the network. Rethink how the network is deployed. Ask for command and control by name, and put it at the forefront in requests for proposals. Challenge your suppliers about their security claims and continuity. You need single, consistent environments,” he advised.
Panelists from Wednesday afternoon’s first session echoed Peterson’s concerns. Local emergency responders must be able to communicate, collaborate and demonstrate, said Christopher David, chief technology officer for the Department of Technology Services, Arlington County, Virginia. “We need to emphasize the process side because the information technology fails if we don’t do that,” David stated at the Emergency Preparedness and Response panel session. It is important to stay at least two steps ahead in planning and three steps ahead in training, he added.
Brenton Greene, deputy manager, National Communications System, pointed out that his organization collaborates with industry to restore networks, but the private sector does the work. State and local organizations are a primary thrust when increasing capabilities. A number of new programs will ensure that first responders will be able to communicate during an emergency.
The terrorist attacks proved that federal response plans work regardless of the cause of the emergency, said Rose Parkes, chief information officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, several improvements have been put into place. Disaster management is one of 24 e-government initiatives that will provide an easy-to-use point of access to disaster management information. Project SAFECOM is an interagency initiative to accelerate wireless communications interoperability across federal, state, tribal and local public safety jurisdictions and disciplines.
Dr. William Jeffrey, senior director for research, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Homeland Security Council, outlined three current priorities. First, the Homeland Security Department is developing standards for equipment and testing. During the anthrax attack, different detection devices gave various results. A standard will ensure that the same threshold is being used.
Second, equipment is being sought that is lower in cost but has the same capabilities. Emergency response personnel can use the same equipment the military uses, Jeffrey pointed out, so dual use needs to be leveraged.
KNOW WHAT???? BABY BOOMERS LIVED THROUGH WHAT WAS A STRONG, WELL-FUNDED PUBLIC EMERGENCY SYSTEM DOING JUST WHAT THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE 'partners' ARE INSTALLING.
Finally, training is a priority. “The first people to respond are likely to be the local agencies. If they don’t train, the equipment may not be used or may be used incorrectly,” Jeffrey said.
Members of Wednesday’s final panel answered questions from the audience about protection against weapons of mass destruction. Panelists agreed that families and corporations should have reasonable plans for emergency situations, natural as well as manmade. For example, they should have a first-aid kit, flashlights and a radio. In addition, family members and company employees should determine where to meet or who to call if an emergency occurs when they are separated.
Panelists were quick to point out that today’s threats are so heterogeneous that one plan cannot address all crises. However, they concurred that getting information to the public is critical so that people can respond appropriately.
Thursday’s session began with a speech by Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr., USA, director, command, control, communications and computer systems, J-6, the Joint Staff. The general outlined U.S. Northern Command’s responsibilities for homeland defense and civil support. For the command to be effective, gaps in information awareness must be closed, integrating technology to an unprecedented degree. He noted that this summer, a proof-of-concept system integrating data for the entire command will be launched. It will track incidents and alerts, detecting potential terrorist threats before they occur.
Former Michigan Governor John Engler, president of state and local government solutions and vice president of EDS Federal Government Solutions, spoke about intra-agency and intergovernmental communications and interoperability. He cautioned that federal funding is necessary for state and local security efforts because many states face massive budget shortfalls. While state governments and communities have first-responder capabilities, homeland security needs are putting stress on them. Engler warned that unfunded mandates may become unmet mandates without the government’s help.
The morning panel session dealt with border and transportation security. Robert Perez, director of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, highlighted the Customs Service’s homeland security efforts. The service has begun using automated risk management systems to locate and inspect potentially high-risk shipments. A major effort is the container security initiative, which is designed to extend container screenings out to the world’s major mega ports. Perez noted that the 10 busiest mega ports represent 50 percent of the trade coming into the United States.
Rear Adm. James C. Olson, USCG, director of operation capabilities, U.S. Coast Guard, described the Coast Guard’s Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) program. MDA creates a common operational picture for the service through an infrastructure that integrates data from sensors and command and control platforms. It will collect, analyze and collate maritime data and distribute it to government and private sector elements. The architecture taps a variety of sources such as the U.S. Defense Department and commercial sector while also providing and sharing information with them. The system offers near-real-time information sharing to identify threats, deploy forces and mitigate vulnerabilities, he said.
Michael Becraft, acting deputy commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), outlined the INS’ new role as a bureau in the Homeland Security Department. Among the challenges this bureau faces is how to protect the nation better while ensuring the continuity of the INS’ traditional missions. Other issues involve coordinating immigration services and enforcement with existing laws, integrating command and control across the department, creating seamless information-sharing systems and managing the merger of 177,000 employees. “There is no room to drop the ball,” he warned.
Luncheon speaker John Chambers, president and chief executive officer of Cisco Systems, outlined how the new threat environment has increased security concerns for computer networks. Addressing conference attendees via a live interactive telecast from California, Chambers explained that it is important to share information and technology across groups, such as government agencies. He added that security must move from closed networks to open systems because, although the old systems were considered secure, most attacks come from within. However, this creates challenges because intelligent information networks must be able to work with each other to identify attacks and intrusions.
The first afternoon session focused on protecting critical infrastructure and other key assets. Panel moderator Andy Purdy, senior adviser for information technology security and privacy, and deputy to the vice chair of the President’s Critical Infrastructure Advisory Board, noted that it is easy to forget about cyberspace when there is so much concern about physical terrorism. He added that a major cyberattack against the nation’s critical infrastructure may occur before action is taken.
The need for government to use industry to protect national infrastructures was discussed by Lt. Col. Kenneth Watson, USMC (Ret.), president, Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security, and manager of critical infrastructure assurance at Cisco Systems. The colonel explained that, to enhance critical infrastructure assurance, the government must lead meetings to facilitate standards, fund research and raise awareness. Service providers need to promote the use of security features, monitor traffic flow and develop an incident response system. Additionally, vendors must provide default security features on their products, improve product development, create new technologies and develop operational best practices.
Dealing with connectivity conundrums for providing information technology for the Homeland Security Department was the final panel’s topic. Lt. Gen. Harry D. Raduege Jr., USAF, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, highlighted similarities between Defense Department information technology efforts and those of the Homeland Security Department. He noted that the need for joint operations in the military parallels the new department’s need to communicate with other government agencies. Similar requirements exist for collaborative tools such as digital whiteboards, chat systems, file and desktop sharing mechanisms to provide common operational tools.
William P. Crowell, consultant and special adviser to the chairman and chief executive officer of SafeNet Incorporated, outlined the necessity of establishing working guidelines to balance privacy against the government’s access to information. The first goal is to maintain the constitutional rule to avoid any unreasonable searches. He added that access to private information should be controlled and rules instituted for searching government databases.
We want only to remind that what was once our 3 branches of US government with CHECKS AND BALANCES-----is now crony, corrupt, and having eliminated those strong, democratic checks and balances. We gave an example here in Baltimore where our Baltimore Public Health, Medical Examiner's Office, and City Attorney's office are all corrupted to protecting what everyone knows is a corrupt and abusive Department of Police tasked with installing global militarized policing policies SHOOT FIRST ASK NO QUESTIONS.
Let's remember, US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE know these few decades have privatized all our national, state, and local county security and policing ------whether or not those agencies are still called 'PUBLIC' ----they are led by national HOMELAND SECURITY which is outsourced to global security and private policing corporations. These policies were installed under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----and no doubt TRUMP will MOVE FORWARD with growing far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic stances.
While we do indeed need to address our thousand of school violence incidences-----we know MOVING FORWARD has goals of civil unrest---ties to global war with aims of killing hundreds of millions including today's US young people in K-12 and university. Keep your eye on the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM GUN policies tied to KILLING A MAN/WOMAN.
Our global 99% of citizens and immigrants need to understand that a super-majority of US citizens do not want ----and do not elect pols installing these policies.
By Tim ShorrockTwitterMay 27, 2015
About a year ago, I wangled a media invitation to a “leadership dinner” in northern Virginia sponsored by the Intelligence and National Security Alliance.
INSA is a powerful but little-known coalition established in 2005 by companies working for the National Security Agency. In recent years, it has become the premier organization for the men and women who run the massive cyberintelligence-industrial complex that encircles Washington, DC.
The keynote speaker was Matthew Olsen, who was then the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He used his talk to bolster the morale of his colleagues, which had recently been stung by the public backlash against the NSA’s massive surveillance programs, the extent of which was still com-ing to light in the steady release of Edward Snowden’s huge trove of documents. “NSA is a national treasure,” Olsen declared. “Our national security depends on NSA’s continued capacity to collect this kind of information.” There was loud, sustained applause.
One of those clapping was a former Navy SEAL named Melchior Baltazar, the CEO of an up-and-coming company called SDL Government. Its niche, an eager young flack explained, is providing software that military agencies can use to translate hundreds of thousands of Twitter and Facebook postings into English and then search them rapidly for potential clues to terrorist plots or cybercrime.
It sounded like the ideal tool for the NSA. Just a few months earlier, Snowden had leaked documents revealing a secret program called PRISM, which gave the NSA direct access to the servers of tech firms, including Facebook and Google. He had also revealed that the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ, had special units focused on cracking encryption codes for social media globally.
SDL’s software is perfectly designed for such a task. It might be useful, say, for a team of SEALs on a covert operation trying to make sure their cover wasn’t blown by somebody on social media—something that almost happened when an alert Twitter user in Pakistan picked up early signs of the secret US raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. And, of course, we don’t know the extent to which the NSA could deploy it.
In any case, the software, SDL boasts, is “securely deployed on-premise, behind the firewall, at over 75 government organizations, including the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community.” No wonder Baltazar was at the INSA event, rubbing shoulders with the kings and queens of the intelligence-contracting industry.
* * *
This small company, and INSA itself, are vivid examples of the rise of a new class in America: the cyberintelligence ruling class.
These are the people--often referred to as “intelligence professionals”—who do the actual analytical and targeting work of the NSA and other agencies in America’s secret government. Over the last 15 years, thousands of former high-ranking intelligence officials and operatives have left their government posts and taken up senior positions at military contractors, consultancies, law firms, and private-equity firms. In their new jobs, they replicate what they did in government—often for the same agencies they left. But this time, their mission is strictly for-profit.
Take Olsen, who served as general counsel for the NSA and as a top lawyer for the Justice Department before joining the NCTC. He is now the president for consulting services of IronNet Cybersecurity, the company founded last year by Army Gen. Keith Alexander, the longest- serving director in the history of the NSA. The firm is paid up to $1 million a month to consult with major banks and financial institutions in a “cyber war council” that will work with the NSA, the Treasury Department, and other agencies to deter cyberattacks that “could trigger financial panic,” Bloomberg reported last July.
Some members of this unique class are household names. Most cable-news viewers, for example, are familiar with Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden, two of the top national-security officials in the Bush administration. In 2009, they left their positions at the Justice Department and the NSA, respectively, and created the Chertoff Group, one of Washington’s largest consulting firms, with a major emphasis on security.
Other members are unknown except to insiders. Sam Visner, whom I wrote about in a 2013 Nation article about NSA whistleblowers, is in this latter group. A former executive at the giant contractor SAIC, he was hired by Hayden in 2000 and tasked with managing the NSA’s privatized (and disastrous) Trailblazer program, which was outsourced to (who else?) SAIC. He returned to SAIC in 2003, then moved on to the government tech firm Computer Services Corporation, which not only manages but owns the NSA’s internal-communications system. For most of the last six years, as the cyberintelligence industry grew by leaps and bounds under Obama, Visner was running CSC’s massive cybersecurity program for the government.
Hardly a week goes by in Washington without a similar transition. In March, The Washington Post described cybersecurity law as “the latest hot job in the Washington revolving door.” Robert Mueller, the recently retired director of the FBI, had just joined the national-security law practice of WilmerHale. One of his latest tasks? Advising Keith Alexander as he tries to tamp down congressional outrage over his decision to hire two NSA officials, one of whom planned to work simultaneously for IronNet and the agency (he later withdrew).
Well, enough, you might say: Isn’t this simply a continuation of Washington’s historic revolving door?
The answer is no. As I see it, the cyberintelligence- industrial complex is qualitatively different from—and more dangerous than—the military-industrial complex identified by President Eisenhower in his famous farewell address. This is because its implications for democracy, inequality, and secrecy are far more insidious.
It is not new for American defense policies to be shaped by and for the 1 percent. Throughout US history, diplomatic and national-security officials have come directly from the ruling elite, and more often than not they have served those interests while in office. Allen and John Foster Dulles, the brothers and law partners who headed the CIA and the State Department during the Eisenhower administration, were classic examples, running multiple operations to support their own clients.
The Eisenhower era also saw the advent of retired generals moving into industry. In 1956, the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills published The Power Elite, a groundbreaking study of the institutions through which the corporations of his day wielded political and economic power. Mills was particularly disturbed by the spectacle of multinational companies appointing prominent generals to their boards. Among those who had traded in their uniforms for big business, he found, were some of the great heroes of World War II: Douglas MacArthur (Remington Rand), Lucius Clay (Continental Can), and Jimmy Doolittle (Shell Oil).
This “personnel traffic,” Mills wrote, symbolized “the great structural shift of modern American capitalism toward a permanent war economy.” It was a prescient analysis, but Mills was talking only of generals; the idea of high-level government officials going into the military business was unthinkable at the time.
The next several decades saw the rise of private security companies and consultancies run by former CIA and FBI agents. Once, in the early 1980s, I was startled to find myself seated next to William Colby, the notorious former CIA director, at a seminar on the Panama Canal. He was there representing a consortium of Japanese construction firms. And, of course, in 1982 Henry Kissinger walked away from his years as national-security adviser and secretary of state to start a corporate consulting firm that remains one of the most powerful in Washington.
Even as Cold War officials increasingly drifted toward the corporate world, there was one line they rarely crossed: Until the 1990s, taking positions at defense contractors was considered unseemly. Then came Frank Carlucci, a former CIA deputy director who served as national- security adviser and defense secretary during Ronald Reagan’s second term. Within weeks of retiring, he had joined the boards of no fewer than nine major corporations, including three important military contractors.
This was too much for Caspar Weinberger, a former Bechtel executive who was Carlucci’s predecessor at the Pentagon. “Generally, I would not think it appropriate to serve on the board of a company that had extensive contractual relationships with the department, particularly not if they had those relationships while I was in office,” he told a reporter at the time. “Cap is entitled to his own preferences,” Carlucci sniffed in response. He went on to chair the Carlyle Group, the private-equity firm that had become the nation’s ninth-largest defense contractor by 2001.
* * *
With the end of the Cold War, Carlucci’s way became the norm. Intelligence and defense budgets were cut after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thousands of CIA and NSA officers left government for positions with defense contractors. Demand for them grew during the Bosnian War, as the military and its intelligence agencies began hiring private companies to do work historically carried out by the state.
BOSNIAN WAR WAS BILL CLINTON ERA---THE EARLIER START OF OUTSOURCING TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
Among them was Halliburton, the Texas oil-services and logistics firm. In 1995, after retiring as George H.W. Bush’s defense secretary, Dick Cheney became the CEO of Halliburton. Over the next five years, he transformed the company into one of the world’s largest military contractors. Around the same time, the elder Bush was hired as a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group. By the time Cheney became George W. Bush’s vice president in 2001, outsourcing was official policy, and the migration of senior-level government officials into the defense and intelligence industries was standard practice.
Then came the September 11 attacks, after which untold billions of dollars were poured into intelligence and surveillance. This ushered in the new age.
What we have now is a national-security class that simultaneously bridges the gap between private and public, merging government careers with jobs as corporate executives and consultants. By retaining their security clearances, many of its members have access to the most highly guarded intelligence, which they use to the benefit of their corporate and government clients. The power they wield is exponentially greater than that of their Cold War predecessors.
To see the difference, let’s take a closer look at the Chertoff Group and its best-known executive, Michael Hayden. Chertoff founded his consultancy in March 2009, barely two months after President Obama’s inauguration. The group’s cofounder was Chad Sweet, who had served as Chertoff’s chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and had earlier worked in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service. In effect, the pair re-created the national-security team that had provided much of the intelligence advice to Bush and Cheney, and they said as much in their literature. According to the firm’s website, the Chertoff Group provides “business and government leaders with the same kind of high-level, strategic thinking and diligent execution that have kept the American homeland and its people safe since 9/11.”
When Hayden came on board in April 2009, he emphasized continuity. “After serving for decades at the highest levels of the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence services, I grew accustomed to working alongside remarkably talented and dedicated professionals,” the former NSA director wrote. “I wanted an opportunity to re-create the experience in the private sector.” And he did just that. One of the firm’s early recruits was Charles E. Allen, a legendary intelligence official who had recently served as director of intelligence for Chertoff’s DHS. Another principal with extensive NSA experience is Paul Schneider, Chertoff’s deputy secretary at DHS; from 2002 to 2003, he was Hayden’s senior acquisition executive at the NSA. That would have put him in charge of all of the NSA’s hugely expensive contracting, which exploded during Hayden’s reign from 1999 to 2005.
With other hires, Hayden created a kind of shadow NSA at the Chertoff Group. But this isn’t his only gig. He has also joined the boards of Motorola Solutions (a key NSA contractor) and Alion Science and Technology (likely one as well). Strangely, Hayden’s bio on the Alion website touts his role in domestic surveillance: “Under his guidance as the Director of NSA, the domestic telephone call database was created to monitor international communications to assist in locating terrorists.”
The Chertoff Group doesn’t disclose its clients. But one of its most important functions for both the state and its contractor allies is as a broker of mergers and acquisitions. These aren’t just “deals”; they also represent significant reorganizations within the intelligence community, which is 70 percent contracted and, like any other industry, requires centralization. Using its team of NSA, CIA, and DHS veterans (who have deep classified knowledge of their agencies’ contracting histories and future needs), the Chertoff Group has brokered dozens of deals through its subsidiary, Chertoff Capital. Its areas of focus include cybersecurity, intelligence and data analytics, defense technology and “Development and Diplomacy (‘Soft Power’).” You get the picture.
Another way the cyberintelligence elite exerts undue influence is through the media. Matthew Olsen, the former National Counterterrorism Center director and IronNet president, recently joined ABC News as a commentator. Hayden is a fixture on cable news, where he regularly extols the greatness of the NSA and its vast surveillance capabilities. Look into any “national-security analyst” on television, and you’ll find a member of this class. Watch carefully: Few of them ever diverge from the company (or NSA, or CIA) line. Worse, the networks rarely disclose these conflicts of interest.
Meanwhile, members of this dual public/private class rub shoulders at places like INSA, where they often meet behind closed doors to discuss classified programs. And even while making millions of dollars through their contracting and consulting gigs, these former officials advise the same agencies they profit from. Olsen, for example, was just named to the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council. It’s a cozy, closed, and very profitable world.
* * *
So what does the existence of such a class mean? First off, it deepens inequality. We all know that corporations can buy access to lawmakers through hefty political donations. Now they have access to some of the state’s most closely held secrets. According to a declassified document obtained in April by The New York Times, Hayden and Alexander were “read into” Stellar Wind, the warrantless-surveillance program started after 9/11. They are bound by law not to divulge those secrets. But their knowledge based on those secrets is of unfathomable value to the corporations they advise on cybersecurity and acquisitions strategies. That knowledge isn’t shared with the public, but it is available to the companies that can afford it.
Second, it places participatory democracy at risk. The vast majority of Americans are excluded from the consequential discussions that take place at the cyber-intelligence elite’s secret meetings. While hashing over controversial programs such as domestic spying, offensive cyberintelligence operations, or FBI terrorist-entrapment programs, the state and corporate leaders at INSA—as well as other places where the new class meets—operate on a completely different plane from the rest of us. Meanwhile, the black hole of secrecy keeps the new hybrid class and its organizations immune from any meaningful oversight by either the executive branch or Congress.
To penetrate this shield, there’s a great need for more reporting and whistleblowing about the pernicious role of contractors in national security. Unfortunately, only a few journalists have explored the world of privatized spying. And strangely, virtually none of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden have focused on the corporate elephant that so clearly dominates the surveillance jungle. As far as I’ve been able to track, only one or two of the Snowden documents actually mention contractors.
One was released in 2014 as part of a Der Spiegel story on the NSA’s extensive collaboration with the German intelligence agency BND. The 2005 document identified an NSA code name as the “coverterm [sic] representing NSA’s contract with Computer Services Corporation (CSC) for mission support. All publicly available information regarding work on this contract…will be sanitized so that no association with NSA will be made.” This document has yet to be mentioned by either the Intercept or The Washington Post, the largest recipients of the Snowden trove.
In his many public appearances since 2013, including in the film Citizenfour, Snowden himself has played down his relationship with Booz Allen Hamilton, which employed him during his time with the NSA. Tom Drake, one of the whistleblowers who exposed the agency’s corrupt relationship with SAIC and Booz Allen and worked as a senior executive at the NSA until 2008, told me in April that Snowden most likely never had possession of the NSA’s contracts. Because Snowden was an infrastructure analyst, Drake said, “he wouldn’t have had access to that.” Contracts, he added, are stored in a “completely different system.”
But whether they come from Snowden or another whistleblower, documents on the contractor role at the NSA and other agencies are essential if we are to understand the totality of US spying programs and the full extent of the threats they pose. To confront the surveillance state, we also have to confront the cyberintelligence ruling class and expose it for what it really is: a joint venture of government officials and private-sector opportunists with massive power and zero accountability.
STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws are made to sound populist for those US 99% of citizens loving their GUNS. STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws are actually tied to global militarized policing and security that operate internationally outside of sovereign nation laws that have these few decades been killing 99% of global citizens for what is almost always found to be NO GOOD REASON. Again, laws made to sound US POPULIST----in this case right wing POPULIST----do not have that goal at all. Our 99% of right wing GUN LOVERS will be those losing gun rights along with all 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE.
Just as the policing issue of POLICE CAMERAS-----also a global private military policing policy made to look US populist----by national media highlighting a case or two in local courts------police cameras will not be used to protect our US 99% of citizens as the goal is simply to use these cameras to identify citizen locations inside personal homes and businesses. This is why we called BALTIMORE'S POLICE CAMERA news FALSE FLAG as none of the officers were charged and found guilty but US citizens were given the idea this militarized policing policy helped a local citizen.
STAND YOU GROUND will end with global military police and security being allowed to KILL A MAN, WOMAN, OR CHILD needing no good reason with those families not able to access justice-----these policies happening overseas in regions due for FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development already happening in our US cities these several years of OBAMA....no doubt MOVING FORWARD under TRUMP.
These Are the States That Have ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws
A Nevada case renews the debate over the controversial laws.
May 28, 2015·
David A. Love is a writer based in Philadelphia. His work has appeared on CNN and been published by The Grio, The Progressive, and The Guardian.
A Nevada murder trial is renewing the debate over America’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense laws.
The story begins in February, when Cody Devine, 34, and Janai Wilson, 29, apparently went, without permission, to a vacant rental property near Reno, Nevada, owned by Wayne Burgarello. According to prosecutors, Burgarello, 73, found Devine and Wilson resting on a floor. He shot them. Burgarello maintains he was acting in self-defense under Nevada’s Stand Your Ground law.
The case is an important reminder about the debate over the controversial laws. Thirty-three states have adopted some form of Stand Your Ground law, according to the American Bar Association. Ten states have introduced bills to repeal or scale back their Stand Your Ground laws this year, and 13 states have pending legislation to strengthen or enact such laws.
Florida was the first state to enact such legislation, in 2005, under then Gov. Jeb Bush, who is currently a Republican presidential candidate. Florida essentially immunizes a person from criminal prosecution or civil action, provided he proves the use of force was necessary to prevent death or serious harm.
(Map: Courtesy Al Jazeera.com)
For years, much of the United States has followed the “castle doctrine,” which basically holds that a person’s home is her castle, which gives that person the right to defend her home through the use of deadly force—and without legal consequences. The National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council—a group of conservative lawmakers—began a push for legislation that ultimately would upend the castle doctrine.
Stand Your Ground laws provide more latitude to invoke self-defense as grounds for killing someone posing an imminent threat. Typically, such laws permit the use of deadly force outside the home against a perpetrator, regardless of whether the perpetrator is armed.
It’s worth remembering that much of the country was introduced to Stand Your Ground laws after the 2012 fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black youth.
Stand Your Ground advocates—particularly the gun industry—argue that the laws are necessary protection from violent criminals. But critics—gun control groups, civil rights activists, and even some law enforcement officials—maintain that they fuel a trigger-happy culture. The renewed debate over Stand Your Ground comes at a remarkable point in our thinking about guns: For the first time in nearly two decades, a majority of Americans say it’s important to protect citizens’ right to own guns.
At a time when the killing of unarmed African Americans by police has given birth to the Black Lives Matter movement, Stand Your Ground critics point to racial fear and bias in the law’s implementation, with a particular appeal to white jurors.
In states with Stand Your Ground laws, justifiable homicides have increased 85 percent, and the shooting of a black person by a white person is deemed justifiable 17 percent of the time. Meanwhile, the shooting of whites by blacks is found justifiable in only 1 percent of cases.
Global banking 1% pols and players on both sides of US party aisles----REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT are selling these gun laws as populist----heating tensions between 99% US citizens----when the goals of global militarized SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER----will kill 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE----whether right wing or left wing.
Instead of corrupting left social progressive policies in this case global banking is corrupting what our right wing conservatives think are their GUN RIGHTS.
So, the REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE policy stance on STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws----is educating how these laws have goals for global security corporations tied to global corporate campuses in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES that will harm 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE whether right wing or left.
When we spend all our protest energy simply trying to reverse one bad policy ====the gorilla-in-the-room issues MOVE FORWARD.
ALL GLOBAL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ALLOW GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND GLOBAL 1% TO HAVE THEIR OWN GLOBAL MILITARY SECURITY AND POLICING.
Any populist NGO pretending to address this STAND YOUR GROUND issue as a left social progressive one---without shouting these few decades against MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----are PRETENDING to be fighting for GUN CONTROL.
“Stand Your Ground” Laws
The traditional presumption in the law—from the advent of the Hebrew Bible through the creation of Roman law, English common law, and American law—has been that if you could spare human life, it was incumbent upon you to do so. With “Stand Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) laws, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its partners in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have turned 3,000 years of jurisprudence on its head. Now you can provoke a fight, and if losing that fight, kill the person you attacked.
The NRA’s law represents a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the use of force in the public space, allowing individuals to kill when they merely fear “great bodily harm” (i.e., a fistfight, shoving match, etc.). The concept of responding with proportional force has been obliterated. Additionally, “Stand Your Ground” laws remove the duty to retreat from a conflict in public, allowing individuals to shoot and kill even when they could otherwise walk away safely from an altercation.
On April 26, 2005, Florida enacted a “Stand Your Ground” law at the behest of NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer. Today, a total of 27 states have these laws on the books. The motive of the NRA and ALEC in promoting these laws is financial. Faced with a decades-long decline in gun ownership in America, the gun industry needs to keep selling new guns to old customers. In this case, compact “defensive handguns” that can be carried in public and used without fear of prosecution.
The message to would-be killers is now clear. You need not fear carrying your gun in public, or using it. If you do, just make sure you are the only one remaining to testify about the nature of the confrontation in question.
Until the NRA’s lethal agenda is countered by Americans of conscience, the inevitability of future Trayvon Martins will hang over America like a funeral shroud.
Sign a petition telling your state lawmakers you oppose “Stand Your Ground” laws.
National media and FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% global banking player groups AS ALWAYS------create the tensions between right and left 99% knowing the goals of global banking 1% with these global militarized policing policies like STAND YOUR GROUND will kill all US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens.
Because a few national media cases were made viral ------pitting one population group against another----now each population group is being tied to thinking only about how this law effects them locally-----with NO DISCUSSION of public policy on the goal of bringing GLOBAL MILITARIZED SECURITY AND POLICING to US Foreign Economic Zones to operate under SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER used overseas these few decades.
'Stand Your Ground Laws Complicate Matters For Black Gun Owners
February 27, 20172:10 PM ET
Karen Grigsby Bates
Karen Grigsby Bates'
The US national media KNOW THIS----as do our US national 'labor and justice' organizations----as do our US national ACLU-----but these groups are led by global banking 5% players---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA so they do not lead on GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM gun issues.
The NRA-----could care less about US 99% of gun owners-----Bush era deregulated US gun laws so now our US gun corporations have become GLOBAL CORPORATIONS not needing US gun buyers.
Idaho Senate backs ‘stand your ground’ gun law on party-line vote
UPDATED: Fri., March 2, 2018, 4:02 p.m.
BOISE - The Idaho Senate has passed a “stand your ground” gun law on a 29-6 party-line vote, with all Senate Republicans voting in favor and all Senate Democrats voting against.
“Idaho has some of the best self-defense laws in the country,” Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, told the Senate. “These concepts have long been recognized and described in Idaho code, case law and jury instructions,” starting with a 1909 Idaho Supreme Court decision.
Lakey said his bill takes all that case law, jury instruction and existing law and consolidates it into a single state code section. “It provides a better location for individuals to look and understand their rights of self defense in Idaho,” he said. “It also preserves and protects these principles so the courts continue to apply them.”
Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, who like Lakey is an attorney, said he had no problem with writing the case law and jury instructions into statute, but he said the bill also changes the burden of proof. “My concern is immunizing people from having to explain their conduct in killing another human being,” Burgoyne said.
Sen. Cherie Buckner-Webb, D-Boise, called the bill unnecessary. “Idaho law currently recognizes one’s right to self-defense and it does not include a duty to retreat,” she told the Senate.
The bill now moves to the House, where it is co-sponsored by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale. A competing, farther-reaching “stand your ground” bill also is pending in a House committee, but it hasn’t yet had a hearing.
Updated: March 2, 2018, 4:02 p.m.
We shared an article showing an IDAHO as passing that STAND YOUR GROUND LAW-----while states having LEFT social progressives wanting gun control----as OHIO are pretending to put up a battle.
Looking below we see those states having installed STAND YOUR GROUND gun laws are often SOUTHERN---are almost all REPUBLICAN-----AND all of them are tied to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES tied to global security and policing wanting to use STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS as SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER-----
What do all these states below have in common? They are MOVING FORWARD as fast as they can -----the goal of ENDING US GUN RIGHT OWNERSHIP tied to SECOND AMENDMENT because global banking 1% ----for whom these FAKE RIGHT WING global banking 1% Republicans work---do not want 99% of citizens able to own guns.
So, left social progressives are being made to believe GUN OWNERSHIP laws ending that SECOND AMENDMENT is good---no one owning guns except those global militarized policing and security corporations.
As we stated----each of these states listed below are MOVING FORWARD as fast as they can----US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES with global corporate campuses.
Here are the states that have passed stand your ground laws:
- New Hampshire
- North Carolina
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
US 99% on both sides of this issue are BEING FOOLED.
Reporters for Columbus Dispatch, as Idaho Spokesman, as Baltimore Sun---all KNOW THESE GOALS. They are 5% global banking 5% freemason/Greek players.
Stand-your-ground bill prompts debate over need for changing Ohio gun law
By Jim Siegel
The Columbus Dispatch
Posted Nov 14, 2017 at 4:59 PM Updated Nov 15, 2017 at 5:42 AM
Ohio’s never-ending stream of gun legislation continued Tuesday with debates over expanding who can carry them, where they can be carried, and providing more legal protections when they are used.
Most of the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee was saved for a stand-your-ground bill that has drawn opposition from county prosecutors and law enforcement for its proposed modification of Ohio’s self-defense law.
Under current law, to claim self-defense a person has a duty to retreat, if possible, before using force. The bill would eliminate that duty, so long as the person has a legal right to be in that location.
The bill also would shift the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that criminal defendants did not act in self-defense, instead of current law, where the defendant must prove he or she properly acted in self-defense when using deadly force.
“We’re asking the prosecution to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt ... that a defendant did not act in self-defense, and that’s very difficult to prove especially in a scenario where a defendant doesn’t take the stand,” said Sen. Sean O’Brien, D-Bazetta, a former assistant county prosecutor.
Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said Ohio is the only state that “puts the burden on a crime victim to prove ... that they were justified. In every other state, the burden is on the state to prove someone committed a crime.
“Even if this passes, you’re going to have to show that you reasonably believed that the person you used force against had the ability and intent to do you harm.”
Some lawmakers, including Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, questioned how other states handle self-defense issues differently than Ohio.
“How in the world can the prosecution present evidence only known to the defendant?” he said. “How are they proving what the defendant knew or didn’t know at the time?”
The provision is part of Senate Bill 180, which also would reduce some concealed-carry firearm violations to minor misdemeanors.
“You’re opening up some door that really don’t need to be opened up here,” said Sen. Cecil Thomas, D-Cincinnati, a retired police officer.
The House passed a bill in 2014 that included a stand-your-ground provision, but the Senate declined to approve it.
The Office of the Ohio Public Defender is supporting the bill, arguing that a good prosecutor can show that no reasonable person could believe a defendant acted in self-defense, regardless of the burden of proof.
Ohio prosecutors are calling it a solution in search of a problem.
“We think current law has served Ohio well and prevented needless deaths,” said Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, adding that it’s “reasonable” for a defendant to have to produce evidence that he acted in self-defense.
“I don’t think there’s an outcry in the state for a stand-your-ground bill like this.”
The Judiciary Committee also began hearings on a bill allowing an off-duty police officer or state Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) investigator to carry a gun in public venues, including hotels, retail stores, restaurants, office buildings, sports venues and amusement parks.
Senate Bill 208 applies to officers who carry a gun in the line of duty.
“The purpose of this bill is to enhance the safety of these public places and provide for a faster response in the case of an active shooter situation,” said Sen. Lou Terhar, R-Cincinnati. “This bill provides for well-trained individuals to respond to these types of incidents.”
The committee also heard about House Bill 79, which would allow medical members of a SWAT team to carry a gun.