111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION S. 3081
To provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who
commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations
on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for
other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 4, 2010

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN

, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts,
Mr. WICKER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. SESSIONS,
and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy
belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United
States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution
of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enemy Belligerent In5
terrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010’’.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2

•S 3081 IS

1 SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY

2 BELLIGERENTS IN MILITARY CUSTODY.

3 (a) MILITARY CUSTODY REQUIREMENT.—Whenever
4 within the United States, its territories, and possessions,
5 or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an
6 individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody
7 or under the effective control of the United States who
8 is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United
9 States or its coalition partners through an act of ter10
rorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war,
11 or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities,
12 and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the
13 individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes
14 of initial interrogation and determination of status in ac15
cordance with the provisions of this Act.
16 (b) REASONABLE DELAY FOR INTELLIGENCE AC17
TIVITIES.—An individual who may be an unprivileged
18 enemy belligerent and who is initially captured or other19
wise comes into the custody or under the effective control
20 of the United States by an intelligence agency of the
21 United States may be held, interrogated, or transported
22 by the intelligence agency and placed into military custody
23 for purposes of this Act if retained by the United States
24 within a reasonable time after the capture or coming into
25 the custody or effective control by the intelligence agency,
26 giving due consideration to operational needs and require-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3
•S 3081 IS
1 ments to avoid compromise or disclosure of an intelligence
2 mission or intelligence sources or methods.
3 SEC. 3. INTERROGATION AND DETERMINATION OF STATUS
4 OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BEL5
LIGERENTS.
6 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERROGATION GROUPS.—
7 (1) ESTABLISHMENT AUTHORIZED.—The Presi8
dent is authorized to establish an interagency team
9 for purposes as follows:
10 (A) To interrogate under subsection (b) in11
dividuals placed in military custody under sec12
tion 2.
13 (B) To make under subsection (c)(1) a
14 preliminary determination of the status of indi15
viduals described in section 2.
16 (2) COMPOSITION.—Each interagency team
17 under this subsection shall be composed of such per18
sonnel of the Executive Branch having expertise in
19 matters relating to national security, terrorism, in20
telligence, interrogation, or law enforcement as the
21 President considers appropriate. The members of
22 any particular interagency team may vary depending
23 on the skills most relevant to a particular case.
24 (3) DESIGNATIONS.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
4
•S 3081 IS
1 (A) HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE.—An indi2
vidual placed in military custody under section
3 2 shall, while subject to interrogation and de4
termination of status under this section, be re5
ferred to as a ‘‘high-value detainee’’ if the indi6
vidual meets the criteria for treatment as such
7 established in the regulations required by sub8
section (d).
9 (B) HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGA10
TION GROUP.—An interagency team established
11 under this subsection shall be known as a
12 ‘‘high-value detainee interrogation group’’.
13 (b) INTERROGATIONS.—
14 (1) INTERROGATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED BY
15 HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP.—A
16 high-value detainee interrogation group established
17 under this section shall conduct the interrogations of
18 each high-value detainee.
19 (2) UTILIZATION OF OTHER PERSONNEL.—A
20 high-value detainee interrogation group may utilize
21 military and intelligence personnel, and Federal,
22 State, and local law enforcement personnel, in con23
ducting interrogations of a high-value detainee. The
24 utilization of such personnel for the interrogation of
25 a detainee shall not alter the responsibility of the in-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
5
•S 3081 IS
1 terrogation group for the coordination within the
2 Executive Branch of the interrogation of the de3
tainee or the determination of status and disposition
4 of the detainee under this Act.
5 (3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT
6 AND RIGHTS.—A individual who is suspected of
7 being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not,
8 during interrogation under this subsection, be pro9
vided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona
10 (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of
11 any rights that the individual may or may not have
12 to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Mi13
randa v. Arizona.
14 (c) DETERMINATIONS OF STATUS.—
15 (1) PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY HIGH16
VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP.—The
17 high-value detainee interrogation group responsible
18 for interrogating a high-value detainee under sub19
section (b) shall make a preliminary determination
20 whether or not the detainee is an unprivileged enemy
21 belligerent. The interrogation group shall make such
22 determination based on the result of its interroga23
tion of the individual and on all intelligence informa24
tion available to the interrogation group. The inter25
rogation group shall, after consultation with the Di-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
6
•S 3081 IS
1 rector of National Intelligence, the Director of the
2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of
3 the Central Intelligence Agency, submit such deter4
mination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attor5
ney General.
6 (2) FINAL DETERMINATION.—As soon as pos7
sible after receipt of a preliminary determination of
8 status with respect to a high-value detainee under
9 paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense and the At10
torney General shall jointly submit to the President
11 and to the appropriate committees of Congress a
12 final determination whether or not the detainee is an
13 unprivileged enemy belligerent for purposes of this
14 Act. In the event of a disagreement between the Sec15
retary of Defense and the Attorney General, the
16 President shall make the final determination.
17 (3) DEADLINE FOR DETERMINATIONS.—All ac18
tions required regarding a high-value detainee under
19 this subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be
20 completed not later than 48 hours after the detainee
21 is placed in military custody under section 2.
22 (d) REGULATIONS.—
23 (1) IN GENERAL.—The operations and activities
24 of high-value detainee interrogation groups under
25 this section shall be governed by such regulations
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
7
•S 3081 IS
1 and guidance as the President shall establish for
2 purposes of implementing this section. The regula3
tions shall specify the officer or officers of the Exec4
utive Branch responsible for determining whether an
5 individual placed in military custody under section 2
6 meets the criteria for treatment as a high-value de7
tainee for purposes of interrogation and determina8
tion of status by a high-value interrogation group
9 under this section.
10 (2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVID11
UALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.—The regulations
12 required by this subsection shall include criteria for
13 designating an individual as a high-value detainee
14 based on the following:
15 (A) The potential threat the individual
16 poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facili17
ties within the United States or upon United
18 States citizens or United States civilian facili19
ties abroad at the time of capture or when com20
ing under the custody or control of the United
21 States.
22 (B) The potential threat the individual
23 poses to United States military personnel or
24 United States military facilities at the time of
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
8
•S 3081 IS
1 capture or when coming under the custody or
2 control of the United States.
3 (C) The potential intelligence value of the
4 individual.
5 (D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a ter6
rorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.
7 (E) Such other matters as the President
8 considers appropriate.
9 (3) PARAMOUNT PURPOSE OF INTERROGA10
TIONS.—The regulations required by this subsection
11 shall provide that the paramount purpose of the in12
terrogation of high-value detainees under this Act
13 shall be the protection of United States civilians and
14 United States civilian facilities through thorough
15 and professional interrogation for intelligence pur16
poses.
17 (4) SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—The President
18 shall submit the regulations and guidance required
19 by this subsection to the appropriate committees of
20 Congress not later than 60 days after the date of
21 the enactment of this Act.
22 SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PROSECUTION OF ALIEN
23 UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
24 (a) LIMITATION.—No funds appropriated or other25
wise made available to the Department of Justice may be
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
9
•S 3081 IS
1 used to prosecute in an Article III court in the United
2 States, or in any territory or possession of the United
3 States, any alien who has been determined to be an
4 unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2).
5 (b) APPLICABILITY PENDING FINAL DETERMINA6
TION OF STATUS.—While a final determination on the sta7
tus of an alien high-value detainee is pending under sec8
tion 3(c)(2), the alien shall be treated as an unprivileged
9 enemy belligerent for purposes of subsection (a).
10 SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED
11 ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
12 An individual, including a citizen of the United
13 States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent
14 under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article
15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
16 Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal
17 charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities
18 against the United States or its coalition partners in which
19 the individual has engaged, or which the individual has
20 purposely and materially supported, consistent with the
21 law of war and any authorization for the use of military
22 force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
23 SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
24 In this Act:
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
10
•S 3081 IS
1 (1) ACT OF TERRORISM.—The term ‘‘act of ter
rorism’’ means an act of terrorism as that term is
3 defined in section 101(16) of the Homeland Security
4 Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(16)).
5 (2) ALIEN.—The term ‘‘alien’’ means an indi6
vidual who is not a citizen of the United States.
7 (3) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CON
GRESS.—The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Con9
gress’’ means—
10 (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the
11 Committee on Homeland Security and Govern12
mental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary,
13 and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
14 Senate; and
15 (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the
16 Committee on Homeland Security, the Com17
mittee on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Se18
lect Committee on Intelligence of the House of
19 Representatives.
20 (4) ARTICLE III COURT.—The term ‘‘Article III
21 court’’ means a court of the United States estab
lished under Article III of the Constitution of the
23 United States.
24 (5) COALITION PARTNER.—The term ‘‘coalition
25 partner’’, with respect to hostilities engaged in by
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
11
•S 3081 IS
1 the United States, means any State or armed force
2 directly engaged along with the United States in
3 such hostilities or providing direct operational sup4
port to the United States in connection with such
5 hostilities.
6 (6) GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE
7 TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.—The term
8 ‘‘Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
9 Prisoners of War’’ means the Geneva Convention
10 Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done
11 at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).
12 (7) HOSTILITIES.—The term ‘‘hostilities’’
13 means any conflict subject to the laws of war, and
14 includes a deliberate attack upon civilians and civil
ian targets protected by the laws of war.
16 (8) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term
17 ‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belong
ing to one of the eight categories enumerated in Ar
ticle 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the
20 Treatment of Prisoners of War.
21 (9) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—
22 The term ‘‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’’ means an
23 individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—
24 (A) has engaged in hostilities against the
25 United States or its coalition partners;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:24 Mar 05, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3081.IS S3081 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
12
•S 3081 IS
1 (B) has purposely and materially sup
ported hostilities against the United States or
3 its coalition partners; or
4 (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of
5 capture.
6 SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
7 This Act shall take effect on the date of the enact
ment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to individ
uals who are captured or otherwise come into the custody
10 or under the effective control of the United States on or
11 after that date.
Æ

The Ruthless Truth blog

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Eva Golinger

Global Research, March 12, 2010

Postcards from the Revolution – 2010-03-11

The Empire will stop at nothing to find mechanisms and techniques to achieve its final objective, and we cannot disregard the possibility of a military conflict in the near future. If the US places Venezuela on the “terrorist list” this year, we could be on the verge of a regional war.
Latin America has suffered constant aggressions executed by Washington during the past two hundred years. Strategies and tactics of covert and overt warfare have been applied against different nations in the region, ranging from coup d’etats, assassinations, disappearances, torture, brutal dictatorships, atrocities, political persecution, economic sabotage, psychological operations, media warfare, biological warfare, subversion, counterinsurgency, paramiliary infiltration, diplomatic terrorism, blockades, electoral intervention to military invasions. Regardless of who’s in the White House – democrat or republican – when it comes to Latin America, the Empire’s policies remain the same.
In the twenty-first century, Venezuela has been one of the principle targets of these constant aggressions. Since the April 2002 coup, there has been a dangerous escalation in attacks and destabilization attempts against the Bolivarian Revolution. Although many fell beneath the seductive smile and poetic words of Barack Obama, it’s not necessary to look beyond the past year to see the intensification of Washington’s aggressions against Venezuela. The largest military expansion in history in the region – through the US occupation of Colombia – the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet of the US Navy, as well as an increased US military presence in the Caribbean, Panama and Central America throughout the past year, can be interpreted as preparation for a conflict scenario in the region.
Escalation in Aggressions
The hostile declarations from various Washington representatives during the past few weeks, accusing Venezuela of failure to combat narcotics operations, violating human rights, “not contributing to democracy and regional stability”, and of being the “regional anti-US leader”, form part of a coordinated campaign that seeks to justify a direct aggression against Venezuela. Soon, Washington will publish its annual list of “state sponsors of terrorism”, and if Venezuela is placed on the list this year, the region could be on the brink of an unprecedented military conflict.
Evidence seems to indicate a move in that direction. A US Air Force document justifying the need to increase military presence in Colombia affirmed that Washington is preparing for “expeditionary warfare” in South America.
The 2009 Air Force document, sent to Congress last May (but later modified in November after it was used to demonstrate the true intentions behind the military agreement between the US and Colombia), explained, ““Development of this CSL (Cooperative Security Location) will further the strategic partnership forged between the US and Colombia and is in the interest of both nations…A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability”.
On the Verge of War
The first official report outlining the defense and intelligence priorities of the Obama administration dedicated substantial attention to Venezuela. The Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community – which has mentioned Venezuela in years past, but not nearly with the same emphasis and extension – particularly signaled out President Chavez as a major “threat” to US interests. “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has established himself as one of the US’s foremost international detractors, denouncing liberal democracy and market capitalism and opposing US policies and interests in the region”, said the intelligence document, placing Venezuela in the same category as Iran, North Korea and Al Qa’ida.
Days after the report was published, the State Department presented its 2011 budget to Congress. In addition to an increase in financing through USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to fund opposition groups in Venezuela – more than $15 million USD – there was also a $48 million USD request for the Organization of American States (OAS) to “deploy special ‘democracy promoter’ teams to countries where democracy is under threat from the growing presence of alternative concepts such as the ‘participatory democracy’ promoted by Venezuela and Bolivia”.
One week later, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the OAS – funded by Washington – emitted a whopping 322-page report slamming Venezuela for human rights violations, repression of the press and undermining democracy. Despite the fact that it was a report – and a Commission – dedicated to the topic of human rights, the detailed study barely mentioned the immense achievements of the Chavez government in advancing human rights; advances which have been recognized and applauded over the past five years by the Unted Nations. The evidence used by the OAS to elaborate the report came from opposition testimonies and biased media outlets, a clear demonstration of dangerous subjectivity.
Simultaneous to these accusations, a Spanish court accused the Venezuelan government last week of supporting and collaborating with the FARC and ETA – organizations considered terrorist by both the US and Spain – provoking an international scandal. President Chavez reiterated that his government has absolutely no ties with any terrorist group in the world. “This is a government of peace”, declared Chavez, after explaining that the presence of ETA members in Venezuela is due to an agreement made over 20 years ago by the government of Carlos Andres Perez in order to aid Spain in a peace treaty with the Basque separatist group.
The Empire Has No Color

Last week, on tour in Latin America, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn’t stop attacking Venezuela during her different declarations made before international media. She expressed her “great concern” for democracy and human rights in Venezuela, accusing President Chavez of not “contributing in a constructive manner” to regional progress. In a cynical tone, Clinton advised President Chavez to “look further south” for inspiration, instead of towards Cuba.
Clinton’s regional trip was part of a strategy announced by the Obama administration last year, to create a divide between the so-called “progressive left” and the “radical left” in Latin America. It’s no coincidence that her first tour of the region coincided with the announcement of a new Latin American and Caribbean Community of States, which excludes the presence of the US and Canada.
The Coming Conflict
A military conflict is not initiated from one day to the next. It’s a process that involves first influencing public perception and opinion – demonizing the target leader or government in order to justify aggression. Subsequently, armed forces are strategically deployed in the region in order to guarantee an effective military action. Tactics, such as subversion and counterinsurgency, are utilized in order to debilitate and destabilize the target nation from within, increasing its vulnerability and weakening its defenses.
This plan has been active against Venezuela for several years. The consolidation of regional unity and Latin American integration threatens US possibilities of regaining domination and control in the hemisphere. And the advances of the Bolivarian Revolution have impeded its “self-destruction”, provoked by internal subversion funded and directed by US agencies. However, the Empire will not cease its attempts to achieve its final objective, and a potential military conflict in the region remains on the horizon.

Eva Golinger is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Eva Golinger

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18064

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Congressional Research Service »

U.S. Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons

[9 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union both deployed thousands of “nonstrategic” nuclear weapons that were intended to be used in support of troops in the field during a conflict. These included nuclear mines; artillery; short, medium, and long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs. In contrast with the longer-range “strategic” nuclear weapons, these weapons had a lower profile in policy debates and arms control negotiations. At the end of the 1980s, before the demise of the Soviet Union, each nation still had thousands of these weapons deployed with their troops in the field, aboard naval vessels, and on aircraft. In 1991, both the United States and Soviet Union announced that they would withdraw most and eliminate many of their nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

Congressional Research Service »

Climate Change and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): Looking to 2020

[9 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

The European Union’s (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is a cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to meet its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. It covers more than 10,000 energy intensive facilities across the 27 EU Member countries; covered entities emit about 45% of the EU’s carbon dioxide emissions. A “Phase 1” trading period began January 1, 2005. A second, Phase 2, trading period began in 2008, covering the period of the Kyoto Protocol. A Phase 3 will begin in 2013 designed to reduce emissions by 21% from 2005 levels.

Corporate, New York »

World Trade Center Insurance Property Risk Report

[9 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

The World Trade Center is one of the most prominent commercial real estate c0mplexes in the world and a hallmark of the Manhattan skyline. This document discusses many of the physical characteristics of the complex. various protection and risk control aspects and some of the potentially catastrophic incidents that might occur.

Corporate, New York »

Underwriters Laboratories Fire Endurance Testing of World Trade Center Floor Truss Assemblies

[9 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

Underwriters Laboratory Fire Endurance Testing of World Trade Center Floor Truss Assemblies, September 21, 2005.

New York »

World Trade Center North Tower Blueprints

[8 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

World Trade Center North Tower (Tower A) complete blueprints, dates ranging from July 1967 – February 1984.

U.S. Army »

U.S. Army Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Awareness Guide Iraq and Afghanistan

[8 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

The purpose of this guide is to give Commanders, Leaders and Soldiers a training tool representing some of the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) used in both the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation. The intent of this guide is to support readiness, unit training, operational planning, and awareness as well as provide information in relation to Reacting to a Possible Improvised Explosive Device (IED) common task 093-401 -5050. Both training and awareness are a proven and effective force protection tool as well as a combat multiplier.

Scholarly »

ELF/VLF Wave-injection and Magnetospheric Probing with HAARP

[8 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

A three year research program is proposed to establish an array of wideband ELF/VLF receivers and to conduct continuous measurements of the magnetospheric response to the injection of ELF/VLF waves using the HAARP HF heater. The primary objective of the proposed program is to detect the so-called ‘one-hop’ direct and the ‘two-hop’ whistler-mode echo of a HAARP-injected ELF/VLF signal, and to study the characteristics of these signals to determine the degree to which injected ELF/VLF signals are amplified by the magnetospheric plasma, leading to the triggering of new emissions and enhanced precipitation of energetic electrons from the radiation belts. The scientific opportunities, background and justification for ELF/VLF wave-injection and magnetospheric probing experiments with HAARP are provided in Attachment A, which is a copy of a detailed report prepared earlier (April 2001) by Stanford for preliminary ELF/VLF wave-injection campaigns conducted under the auspices of the Polar Aeronomy and Radio Science (PARS) program.

U.S. Secret Service »

U.S. Secret Service: Best Practices For Seizing Electronic Evidence

[7 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

U.S. Secret Service manual on best practices For seizing electronic evidence, October 9, 2006.

Intelligence Fusion Centers, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington D.C. »

Fusion Centers Warn of White Powder Letter Incidents 2008-2010

[7 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

FOUO/LES Fusion Center intelligence briefs from the New Jersey Regional Operations Intelligence Center, Boston Regional Intelligence Center, Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center, and Washington D.C. FireWatch warning of white powder letter incidents from 2008-2010.

Chile, European Union »

EU Chile Earthquake Preliminary Damage Assessment Maps

[6 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

EU G-MOSAIC Chile Earthquake Preliminary Damage Assessment Maps, March 3, 2010.

Department of Homeland Security, New Hampshire »

New Hampshire 2004 State Homeland Security Strategy

[6 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

This document will serve as the first State Homeland Security Strategy (SHSS) for New Hampshire. The purpose of this strategy is to identify a strategic direction for enhancing statewide capability and capacity to prevent and reduce the vulnerability of New Hampshire from weapons of mass destruction (WMD)/terrorism incidents. This is an exceedingly complex mission that requires coordination, cooperation and focused effort from the entire state-citizens, local, state, and federal government, as well as the private and non-profit sectors.

Missouri »

Missouri 2008 Homeland Security Strategy

[6 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

This State Homeland Security Strategy (Strategy) was developed to provide overarching guidance to the State’s Homeland Security programs and initiatives, to include guidance in support of the homeland security governance provided through the Governor’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and nine Regional Homeland Security Oversight Committees (RHSOC). This Strategy will help prepare our State for the work ahead in several ways. It provides direction to state government agencies, departments, and offices on activities Missouri plans to undertake in order to sustain existing capabilities in four U.S. Department of Homeland Security mission areas (prevention, protection, response, and recovery) and enhance the emergency preparedness posture statewide between 2009 and 2011. Missouri’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), specifically the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) and State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), will use the Strategy as a mechanism to track progress in implementing and completing security-related projects.

Department of Homeland Security, Nebraska »

Nebraska 2006 State Homeland Security Strategy

[6 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

The purpose of the Nebraska State Homeland Security Strategy (NSHSS) is to identify a strategic direction for enhancing the State of Nebraska?s capability and capacity to detect, prevent against, protect against, respond to, and recover from threats or incidents of terrorism, natural disasters, major emergencies, and incidents of national significance. This is an exceedingly complex mission that requires coordination, cooperation and focused effort from the entire State’s citizens, local, tribal, state, and federal government, as well as the private and non-profit sectors.

Corporate »

eBay/PayPal Law Enforcement Guide

[5 Mar 2010 | 3 Comments | ]

eBay, Inc., has established a Fraud Investigations Team (FIT) to promote safe use of our platforms and encourage prosecution of those responsible for misconduct on them. Law enforcement agencies in North America seeking assistance and records for investigations that relate to either the eBay or PayPal should use the Frequently Asked Questions below as guidance in how FIT can assist in these investigations.

Corporate »

MySpace Law Enforcement Information Handout

[5 Mar 2010 | One Comment | ]

MySpace Law Enforcement Information Handout from September 2, 2005.

Congressional Research Service »

High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and High Power Microwave (HPM) Devices: Threat Assessments

[5 Mar 2010 | One Comment | ]

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) is an instantaneous, intense energy field that can overload or disrupt at a distance numerous electrical systems and high technology microcircuits, which are especially sensitive to power surges. A large scale EMP effect can be produced by a single nuclear explosion detonated high in the atmosphere. This method is referred to as High-Altitude EMP (HEMP). A similar, smaller-scale EMP effect can be created using non-nuclear devices with powerful batteries or reactive chemicals. This method is called High Power Microwave (HPM). Several nations, including reported sponsors of terrorism, may currently have a capability to use EMP as a weapon for cyber warfare or cyber terrorism to disrupt communications and other parts of the U.S. critical infrastructure. Also, some equipment and weapons used by the U.S. military may be vulnerable to the effects of EMP.

Scholarly »

Ionospheric modification and ELF/VLF wave generation by HAARP

[4 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

Stanford University brief on Ionospheric modification and ELF/VLF wave generation by HAARP, January 7, 2006.

Department of Homeland Security, Louisiana »

Louisiana 2006 State Homeland Security Strategy

[4 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

The purpose of this strategy is to identify a strategic direction for enhancing our State, Region and Parish response capabilities and capacity to prevent and reduce the State’s vulnerability to all-hazard disaster events, to include Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Explosive (CBRNE) incidents. This is an exceedingly complex mission that requires coordination, cooperation, and focused effort from the entire State (citizens, local, state, and federal partners) as well as private industry and non-profit voluntary agencies. To that end, each of the sixty four (64) parishes will update or will develop Memorandums of
Understanding (MOU) over the next year agreeing to assist each other in event of major CBRNE incidents.

Department of Homeland Security, Nevada »

Nevada State Homeland Security Strategy (2007)

[3 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

The purpose of the Nevada State Homeland Security Strategy (SHSS) is to identify and address statewide priorities to achieve and sustain a strengthened ability to prevent, detect, deter, mitigate against, prepare for, respond to and recover from any natural, manmade and/or technological emergency or disaster up to and including any act of terrorism. The State, through implementation of this strategy, is seeking outcomes that will ensure a safe and secure Nevada through enhanced capabilities in intelligence, surveillance, rapid first response and recovery, the protection of critical infrastructure, and to promote public education and awareness.

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command »

SPAWAR/USCYBERCOM Cyber Warfare, Exploitation & Information Dominance (CWEID) Lab Overview

[3 Mar 2010 | No Comment | ]

Opening Statements
▼Never before has it been possible for one person to potentially affect an entire Nation‟s security.
▼In 1999 (10 years ago), two Chinese Colonels published a book called “Unrestricted Warfare” that advocated “not fighting” the U.S. directly, but “understanding and employing the principle of asymmetry correctly to allow us [the Chinese] always to find and exploit an enemy’s soft spots.”
▼The idea that a less-capable foe can take on a militarily superior opponent also aligns with the views of the ancient Chinese general, Sun Tzu. In his book “The Art of War,” the strategist advocates stealth, deceptionand indirect attackto overcome a stronger opponent in battle.

Public Intelligence

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Cameron Stewart & Paul Maley
The Australian
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:23 EST

© The Australian
Australian Nicole McCabe, seen here with her mother, Jane Kramer, on her wedding day, had her passport faked.

Australia yesterday warned Israel its standing as a friend would be jeopardised if it were found to have condoned the suspected theft of three Australian citizens’ identities by its Mossad spy agency to carry out a political assassination.
As Kevin Rudd demanded answers over Israel’s role in the growing international scandal – and ASIO and the Australian Federal Police launched investigations – it was revealed that Australia had previously warned Israel not to use fake Australian passports for intelligence operations.
A diplomatic row broke out yesterday when three Victorians, all living in Israel, were confirmed among 26 people from four nations whose tampered passports were allegedly used by a team of suspected Israeli Mossad agents who assassinated Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai last month.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith summoned Israel’s ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, early yesterday to express his "grave concern" about the issue.
"I’ve made it crystal clear to the ambassador that if the results of (our) investigation cause us to come to the conclusion that the abuse of Australian passports was in any way sponsored or condoned by Israeli officials, then Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend," he said.
The Prime Minister vowed the government would "get to the bottom" of the case.
"We will not be silent on this matter," Mr Rudd said.
"Any state that has been complicit in the use or abuse of the Australian passport system, let alone for the conduct of an assassination, is treating Australia with contempt and there will therefore be action by the Australian government in response," he said.
Israeli officials conceded nothing and promised nothing in response to Australia’s demands.
The latest spy scandal comes more than five years after New Zealand temporarily cut diplomatic ties with Israel after two alleged Israeli agents, including one who had lived in Sydney for several years, were jailed for trying to obtain a false Kiwi passport.
And diplomatic sources said the latest scandal was not the first time Australia has raised serious concerns about the behaviour of Israel’s secret intelligence agency, Mossad.
Australian authorities quietly approached the Israeli government in the 1990s to seek assurances that Australian passports would not be abused after it was feared Israeli agents had doctored several New Zealand passports.
The Australian has been told that during that meeting with Israeli government officials, the Israelis responded with "enraged self-righteousness" at the suggestion that they would condone such identity theft.
Former foreign minister Alexander Downer last night confirmed the Howard government had warned Israel at least once not to issue fake Australian passports to its intelligence operatives.
"I’m not 100 per cent sure that I didn’t myself raise it with the Israelis," Mr Downer told The Australian.
Speaking from Greece, Mr Downer said the warning was issued in the context of a series of botched operations involving Mossad agents travelling on fake passports. "My recollection is that over time we have raised this issue with the Israelis," he said.
"We have raised the issue of Israeli intelligence officers using foreign passports and that they should not consider using Australian passports."
Three Australian passport holders – Adam Marcus Korman, Joshua Daniel Bruce and Nicole Sandra McCabe were named by Dubai police among 15 new suspects in the January 20 assassination, which is widely believed to have been a Mossad operation.
Dubai police released passports purporting to belong to the three Australians. Although the written details in the passports were correct, all three Australians said the photographs in the documents were of other people.
The fake passports were thought to be "duplicated" copies of the originals, but Mr Bruce’s mother, Sarah, said the signature on the passport did not match her son’s.
The three Victorians, who now live in Israel, were said to be shocked by the news and denied any involvement in the assassination team, which allegedly now numbers 26 people.
"It’s identity theft, simply unbelievable," Mr Korman, who sells musical instruments in Tel Aviv, told an Israeli newspaper. "I have been frightened and shocked since receiving the news."
Dubai police said two of the Australians – identified as Ms McCabe and Mr Korman – had escaped Dubai on a ship bound for Iran, but offered no explanation as to why they would go there.
Mabhouh’s murder has received global prominence after hotel video footage captured the assassination team wearing tennis gear and riding in a lift with their target shortly before he was smothered by a pillow in his room.
Israel has declined to confirm or deny Mossad’s involvement, in keeping with its "no comment" policy on intelligence matters.
Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, has said there was nothing linking Israel to the assassination.
Britain, France and Ireland have publicly asked Israel to explain the allegedly fraudulent use of their citizens’ passports to help the assassination team enter Dubai without scrutiny.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has described as an "outrage" the use of six fake British passports in the plot.
In 1997, Mossad bungled the assassination of top Hamas leader Khalid Mishal, who was injected while in Jordan with a poison by Israeli agents travelling on Canadian documents. He survived after his assailants were captured by his bodyguards and Israel provided the antidote.
In 2004, two Mossad agents were jailed in New Zealand after trying to obtain fake passports, one in the name of a cerebral palsy sufferer.
Mr Downer said the incident had provoked howls of outrage across the Tasman.
"It was certainly raised with me in a very animated way by Phil Goff when he was the New Zealand foreign minister," Mr Downer said. "They were very, very animated about it."
The then prime minister, Helen Clark, imposed diplomatic sanctions on Israel, accusing the two men of acting for Mossad.

Comment: As with every other country whose citizens had their identities "duplicated", Australia is protesting loudly but unlikely to do nothing about it. In a way all these countries are complicit in Israel’s murder racket. Israel has been doing this for years. Each time it is appeased, it becomes more brazen, while the host nation is left to clean up the mess by assuring its people that it won’t happen again. Australians would do well to remember that this has all happened before; 5 years ago in fact. The New Zealand case mentioned above was actually run out of the Israeli embassy in Canberra:

The ramifications of this international incident are still being played out. It was revealed, in February 2005, that Australia had asked Israel to withdraw a diplomat from its Canberra Embassy. This had not been publicly announced and when the Australian media exposed it, several weeks after the event, the Australian government refused to comment. But the seriousness of this unusual move is underscored by the fact that Australia and Israel are good friends.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203867-Australians-caught-in-hit-on-Hamas

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, February 26, 2010

The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the “Inside the Beltway” report, “Explosive News,” about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.

I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.

How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? “A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times.

The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided “insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction” and are “calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.”

The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the architects and engineers said: “Government officials will be notified that ‘Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial.”

There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main press conference in San Francisco, Eric Lawyer,the head of that organization, announced the firefighters’ support for the architects and engineers’ demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.

Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video evidence of explosions.

Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.

Before we yell “conspiracy theory,” we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away.

If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission’s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow, a member of President George W. Bush’s transition team and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State Condi “Mushroom Cloud” Rice.

There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them. Despite expensive wars that threaten Social Security and Medicare, wars based on non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, non-existent Saddam Hussein connections to al Qaida, non-existent Afghan participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the non-existent Iranian nukes that are being hyped as the reason for the next American war of aggression in the Middle East, more than half of the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western world.

Moreover, it doesn’t matter to these Americans how often the government changes its story. For example, Americans first heard of Osama bin Laden because the Bush regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on him. Over the years video after video was served up to the gullible American public of bin Laden’s pronouncements. Experts dismissed the videos as fakes, but Americans remained their gullible selves. Then suddenly last year a new 9/11 “mastermind” emerged to take bin Laden’s place, the captive Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the detainee waterboarded 183 times until he confessed to mastermining the 9/11 attack.

In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S. Constitution, the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as the only evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists pulled off 9/11.

If a person considers the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, they are simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant, capable superhero than V in the fantasy movie, “V for Vendetta.”  Sheik Mohammed outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those of all U.S. allies or puppets, including Israel’s Mossad. No intelligence service on earth or all of them combined was a match for Sheik Mohammed.

Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force, and Air Traffic Control.

He caused Airport Security to fail four times in one morning. He caused the state-of-the-art air defenses of the Pentagon to fail, allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course all morning while the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was unable to get aloft intercepter aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon.

Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified pilots.

Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to prevent the FBI from releasing the many confiscated videos that would show, according to the official story, the hijacked airliner hitting the Penagon.

How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?

If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the government’s conspiracy theory.

What is going on here is that the U.S. government has to bring the 9/11 mystery to an end. The government must put on trial and convict a culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.

The U.S. government has responded to the evidence being arrayed against its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on terror from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on February 21  that American extremists are now as big a concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course, are people who get in the way of the government’s agenda, such as the 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The group used to be 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?

Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11 skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them at all cost.

Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they are on to something?

Instead, why doesn’t the U.S. government simply confront the evidence that is presented and answer it? 

If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and refute it.  Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents and to set them up?

Many Americans would reply that “their” government would never even dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. government can assassinate its own citizens when they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction of a capital crime is necessary.  Just straight out murder.

Obviously, if the U.S. government can murder its citizens abroad it can murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch Davidians were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration for no legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power knowing that it could get away with it, which it did.

Americans who think “their” government is some kind of morally pure operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the U.S. could gain domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The secret plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. It is available online in the National Security Archive. There are numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James Bamford’s book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:

“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman [Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”

Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the wars of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East required “a new Pearl Harbor.”

For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the government’s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony. As I write the U.S. government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases. The U.S. intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia. [see www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17709 ]  U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet republics under the guise of the ever-expanding “war on terror.”

The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil.

This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.

The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed up American “superpower.”

The morons in Washington are pushing the envelop of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of “their” government, are facilitating this outcome.

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17821

Bookmark It

Hide Sites