[PUG] - Privacy, Security, National Intelligence & Security (from Snowden's NSA leaks) | INFJ Forum

[PUG] Privacy, Security, National Intelligence & Security (from Snowden's NSA leaks)

  • Like
Reactions: rawr
serenesam said:
“What’s really infuriating is Prime Minister [Vladimir] Putin of Russia aiding and abetting Snowden’s escape,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The Democrat said he believes it is likely Putin approved of Snowden’s trip."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...putin-is-aiding-and-abetting-snowdens-escape/
Click to expand...

interesting. i'll look into that. It's hard to find unbiases sources and take sources you know are somewhat biased to synthesize more of what really happened so you can decide for yourself how you feel. Interesting though.
 
Everyone, EVERYONE is being played by the politicians. And the annoying thing is, our politicians aren't that intelligent, they just know how to play people. America is falling fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
Well done to Snowdon!

People need to keep exposing the plans of the fascists who run the USA and how they are trying to create a totalitarian police state in the USA

Obamas regime has been waging a war against whistleblowers as it is terrified that the plan of the globalist international bankers to destroy the US on the way to creating a global fascist government is being exposed to the public
 
apparently he's been release more docs he has in his posession.
 
The congressional hearings are a joke though. You can get caught red-handed, but then you can just blatantly lie or refuse to talk. Resignation is not equivalent to fixing what's wrong.


@rawr What I mean is that even when those who make the decisions to sanction clandestine programs to engage in acts such as spying on US citizens are grilled by a congressional panel, they can be asked point-blank if they were aware that this was going on, and yet they can simply resort to saying "No I wasn't aware" even if they're blatantly lying (with documentation to prove it) or just say that they don't want to talk about it (5th). I imagine that you may have been unclear on my opinion of Snowden, who I do not view as a traitor for the record, even though I suppose he is by law. I don't support taking any punitive action against him, and it's a shame that this is what happens to those who expose dishonesty.

And even then, what's the worst that happens to those in charge? They resign. It doesn't guarantee that successors will not continue what was being done in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
Black Sheep said:
The congressional hearings are a joke though. You can get caught red-handed, but then you can just blatantly lie or refuse to talk. Resignation is not equivalent to fixing what's wrong.


@rawr What I mean is that even when those who make the decisions to sanction clandestine programs to engage in acts such as spying on US citizens are grilled by a congressional panel, they can be asked point-blank if they were aware that this was going on, and yet they can simply resort to saying "No I wasn't aware" even if they're blatantly lying (with documentation to prove it) or just say that they don't want to talk about it (5th). I imagine that you may have been unclear on my opinion of Snowden, who I do not view as a traitor for the record, even though I suppose he is by law. I don't support taking any punitive action against him, and it's a shame that this is what happens to those who expose dishonesty.

And even then, what's the worst that happens to those in charge? They resign. It doesn't guarantee that successors will not continue what was being done in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah they will lie because they have contempt for the system and for us

Who do you think creates these alphabet organisations like the NSA or CIA?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
One the biggest problems is the ridiculously overly-broad language of the relevant laws. Disclosure of what has been happening with these laws after some shortish time should have been written into them, at least -- as with all things that intelligence agencies are granted license to do secretly in our names. That the senator's gave themselves immunity should have been enough to have it axed. In fact, the law is illegal according to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, for that reason.

Now would be a good time to look over some of the Church Committee reports, if one doubts that more has happened that we haven't heard of yet. Another such accounting is in order. COINTELPRO, MKUltra etc aren't conspiracy theorists' pipe dreams, but recorded facts. Such things are undeniably heinous and evil. Addressing these issues is, IMHO, the top priority to consider when voting.

In a nutshell: The government is the citizens', not the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
Well said @Kanamori

COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, PRISM, Operation Naomi, chemtrails, operation paperclip, operation MLAC, operation Dew, Operation Northwood etc etc etc they all come from the same people

Those same people create groups like the CIA which often overrule government agencies such as the police or border control.

The CIA is involved in global drugs smuggling operations. It is involved in global arms dealing. It is involved in rendition, torture, acts of terrorism, death squads and assassinations.

The CIA recruits from and is run by the US money EL-ite

It has intimate links with mossad, with Nazi International, with MI6, with the vatican, with the jesuits, with the freemasons, the JASON society, with the P2 Lodge, with NATO, with the Knights of St John etc etc

There is a hidden network of groups across the world who are all conspiring to control the public using fear and violence.

They don't care about laws.....as far as they are concerned they are above the law

Their control is most strong in the USA, Israel, Canada, Australasia, Japan and Europe. They have created a set of policies called 'neoliberalism' that they force onto other countries which then sees their economies ruined and their assets privatised and sold off to private elements to control.

Outside this neoliberal club are other countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuala, Ecuador who have all fought to keep control over their own natural resources and as a result the neoliberal club have sought to destabilise or destroy them, threatening often to bomb countries into the stone age in order to intimidate them.

These same global criminals who are behind systematic violence, theft and rape like to tell the public in the west that they are standing up for 'democracy' or 'freedom' because if they told us the truth, that they are liars, rapists, murderers and theives we wouldn't stand for it. They can do this because they have bought up nearly all of the mainstream media

There are sources of media that are coming from outside their control now for example RT from russia or a whole range of alternative media for exmaple David Ike is now setting up his own Tv channel so that he can get camerapeople to the scene of false flag terror attacks to get first hand eyewitness acounts so that the corporate media can't spin the story into a lie. (the 'headlines' section of his website is very good and a person can get more insight into what is going on from ten minutes on that then reading mainstream newspapers for ten days)

So that's why Snowden ran to China and then Russia because he is running away from the cabal of 8 families who would throw him in the hole like they have to Bradley manning or worse like they have done to many others (including US presidents)

The cabal have placed their puppets in power in many poor countries so that they can exploit the resources of those countries but the people are growing sick of it which is why there are protests going on all around the world at the moment. People are waking upto the web of control the cabal have spun, what makes up the web, and why they have done it

This global awakening we are living through is a global event the likes of which history has never seen

I really hope humanity can wake up and start squashing the parasites that have been preying on it
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] , thank you.

I'd also like to point out that there was obviously disinformation, in that the companies were not only told to not tell the truth, but also to lie about their involvement, if one looks at the companies whom initially denied their role. My guess is that it doesn't stop there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
Oh for sure man, the corruption runs deep, but it all traces back to the people behind the federal reserve bank
 
1044845_625797954097853_281988846_n.jpg
 
[h=1] The NSA-DEA police state tango [/h] [h=2]This week's DEA bombshell shows us how the drug war and the terror war have poisoned our justice system[/h] By Andrew O'Hehir
So the paranoid hippie pot dealer you knew in college was right all along: The feds really were after him. In the latest post-Snowden bombshell about the extent and consequences of government spying, we learned from Reuters reporters this week that a secret branch of the DEA called the Special Operations Division – so secret that nearly everything about it is classified, including the size of its budget and the location of its office — has been using the immense pools of data collected by the NSA, CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies to go after American citizens for ordinary drug crimes. Law enforcement agencies, meanwhile, have been coached to conceal the existence of the program and the source of the information by creating what’s called a “parallel construction,” a fake or misleading trail of evidence. So no one in the court system – not the defendant or the defense attorney, not even the prosecutor or the judge – can ever trace the case back to its true origins.
On one hand, we all knew more revelations were coming, and the idea that the government would go after drug suspects with the same dubious extrajudicial methods used to pursue terrorism suspects is a classic and not terribly surprising example of mission creep. Both groups have been held up as bogeymen for years, in order to scare the public into accepting ever nastier and more repressive laws. This gives government officials another chance to talk to us in their stern grown-up voices about how this isn’t civics class, and sometimes they have to bend the rules to catch Really Bad People.
On the other hand, this is a genuinely sinister turn of events with a whiff of science-fiction nightmare, one that has sounded loud alarm bells for many people in the mainstream legal world. Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law professor who spent 18 years as a federal judge and cannot be accused of being a radical, told Reuters she finds the DEA story more troubling than anything in Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. It’s the first clear evidence that the “special rules” and disregard for constitutional law that have characterized the hunt for so-called terrorists have crept into the domestic criminal justice system on a significant scale. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations,” she said. Maybe this is how a police state comes to America: Not with a bang, but with a parallel construction.
advertisement
At this point, there are a lot more questions than answers about what Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Hanni Fakhoury has dubbed the DEA’s “intelligence laundering” operation. Here are three big ones: How far does all this go? Where does it stop? And why doesn’t the general public seem to give a damn? That last question partly reflects the fact that the NSA has evidently been tracking everybody’s cell phone calls and emails, and that sounds scary. It’s easy for many middle-class Americans to convince themselves that they have nothing to fear from the DEA, even if it has morphed into a dark secret-police force we’re barely aware of. As revolutionary and noted hypocrite Thomas Jefferson once observed, the spread of tyranny only requires our silence.
Millions of people have been sent to prison on drug-war convictions over the last 20 years. Most of those people have been poor and black. We will never know how many of those cases resulted from secret evidence collected by spy agencies, but it might not be a small number. One of the Reuters articles that broke this story quotes DEA officials as saying that the “parallel construction” tactic had been used by the agency “virtually every day since the 1990s.” Legal scholar Michelle Alexander, author of the recent bestseller “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” sent me an email from her family vacation to say that these revelations “certainly lead one reasonably to wonder how many people — especially poor people of color, who have been the primary targets in the drug war — have been spied on by the DEA in the name of national security.”
From the outset, there have been moral, philosophical and technological connections between the war on drugs and the war on terror. Both campaigns involve the unprecedented expansion of executive power and the use of high-tech paramilitary policing. Both involve “adjusting” our supposedly cherished constitutional rights and privileges in the name of protecting us from evil. Both involve targets that are easy to demonize and marginalize, and both embody troubling questions about race, class and power. Most important of all, both conflicts are immensely expensive and shockingly self-destructive. If these parallel wars had been designed to fail – designed to create a state of permanent crisis, empower and enrich a caste of warrior-bureaucrats and undercut constitutional democracy – they could hardly have been designed more perfectly.
In the recent documentary “How to Make Money Selling Drugs,” David Simon of “The Wire” and “Treme” describes the United States as a society that “hunts down and incarcerates poor people.” Michelle Alexander’s book depicts the mass imprisonment of African Americans as a new system of racial control that is more efficient than the old one precisely because it is veiled by official colorblindness. As investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill and others have documented, the borderless global war against al-Qaida has only widened and deepened mistrust of America all over the Arab and Muslim world, by too often resembling an indiscriminate campaign of murder and torture against civilians. Anwar al-Awlaki was a moderate Virginia imam who once gave a speech at the Pentagon, and was driven to the other side by his perception that the U.S. was waging war on Islam.
Now we can see that these two arms of the national-security octopus are intertwined as well. As John Shiffman, David Ingram and Kristina Cooke of Reuters reported in a series of articles over the past week, the DEA’s Special Operations Division – originally created in 1994 to battle Latin American drug cartels – routinely funnels “information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.” We’re talking about data collected by all the clandestine but theoretically legal means that Edward Snowden’s leaks have told us about, data gathered in the name of combating terrorism that ends up being used for entirely different purposes. These are ordinary drug prosecutions with no links to terrorism or other national security issues, but in which the information that led to the original arrest is treated as a state secret.
Documents uncovered by Reuters specifically instruct federal agents and local police to “omit the SOD’s involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony.” Instead, cops and agents are told to “recreate the investigative trail” to make it look like regular police work. This is “parallel construction,” a marvelous and terrifying bureaucratic neologism that in plain English appears to mean lying. For instance, it might mean claiming that a traffic stop that led to a drug bust stemmed from a broken taillight or an illegal left turn, rather than an NSA intercept, an overseas wiretap or a CIA informant.
Fakhoury’s recent post on the EFF’s DeepLinks blog explores various ways that these deliberate deceptions appear to violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and undercut the crucial role of legal scrutiny entrusted to the courts. They prevent judges from assessing the constitutionality of government surveillance (since they never even find out about it), and deprive criminal defendants of the venerable common-law right to examine and challenge the evidence against them. He also makes the broader point that the NSA’s enormous trove of surveillance data has provoked an “unquenchable thirst for access” among other law enforcement agencies, whose leaders imagine all the wonderful things they could do with it.
All this underscores, of course, that while drug-war prosecutions are supposed to be just like other kinds of criminal cases, in practice they have a special status and are treated differently. But one may still ask, given that this administration and the last one (and quite likely the one before that) have repeatedly misled the public about the existence, extent and scope of surveillance programs, whether there is any reason to believe that the pipeline of secret data and the manipulation of the justice system is limited to drug cases. Should we be confident that NSA intercepts and foreign-intelligence wiretaps and “parallel construction” will never be used to build criminal cases against hackers, leakers, Occupy activists, investigative journalists, unfriendly pundits and any other dissidents on the left or the right whom the government decides to persecute?
“We have no assurances about any of that,” Fakhoury told me by phone from his San Francisco office. “As information about these programs has unfolded and we keep learning more, we also see that at every step along the way the government has justified the program through fancy word games and legal language that does not mean what it appears to mean. Right now the government hasn’t done anything to give anyone faith or trust that the limits they claim are actually in place.”
In theory, the DEA disclosures could and should have outraged Americans across the political spectrum, especially when added to all the other bad things we’ve learned about our government this year. Except that blind partisan loyalty now trumps everything in national politics, and almost nothing about our country’s slide toward soft police state still shocks anybody. Conservatives only care about civil liberties when they affect rich and/or rural white folks, and support any degree of tyranny when it comes to conducting the drug war and locking up poor people. As Bruce A. Dixon of Black Agenda Report notes, liberals of all races would have howled about this stuff under Bush-Cheney, but with a black Democrat in the White House they make excuses or pretend it isn’t happening.
Maybe we’re all just dazed by the tide of NSA revelations, distracted by celebrity sex scandals and the idiotic infighting of Washington, and insulated by the techno-workaholic bubble of ordinary life, in which America still seems like a calm and normal place. If I had to break it down, I would guess that half the population clings to the optimistic belief that reasonable people are in charge and things will work out for the best, while the other half has become entirely cynical. I mean, who still thinks that drug dealers have rights? That’s so 20th century! The rest of us gave up those delusions when we got iPhones.
Click to expand...
 
"Some day it will be realized that systems of power typically try to extend their pow






[h=1]The CIA has nothing on Noam Chomsky (no, really)[/h]
[h=2]Posted By John Hudson
091022_meta_block.gif
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 1:00 PM[/h]
This month, a two-year-long investigation into CIA records on Noam Chomsky concluded with a surprising result: Despite a half-century of brazen anti-war activism and countless overseas speaking engagements, the Central Intelligence Agency has no file on the legendary MIT professor.
"Our searches were thorough and diligent, and it is highly unlikely that repeating those searches would change the result," reads an agency reply to a Freedom of Information Act request for any and all CIA records on Chomsky. The request, obtained by Foreign Policy, was submitted byPortland-based writer Frederic Maxwell, who's writing a book about the renowned linguist.
At stake is not so much the CIA's reputation (the agency's forays into domestic spying in the 60s and 70s are well-documented), but Chomsky's: For what's a towering leftist dissident without a lengthy CIA file -- that ultimate rite of passage for 60s-era dissenters?
Was Chomsky maybe even a little disappointed by the lack of a CIA file? Last, week, I presented him with the CIA's findings, which he hadn't been privy to.
"I don't care," said Chomsky, refusing to take the baitduring a phone interview. "I had nothing to do with the request." While not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of being seen as envious of CIA surveillance, he did insist that he was the focus of another federal entity's dragnet. "I'm sure the FBI has a big file," he said.
But hold on. No CIA file? And Chomsky's not suspicious? I reminded him of his impeccable qualifications for such surveillance.
Over the years, Chomsky's broad criticisms of the U.S. government (a "terrorist state") made him the only person on both Richard Nixon's Enemies List and the Unabomber's kill list. In the 60s and 70s, he undertook frequent overseas speaking engagements in countries that included Cambodia and Vietnam. He contributed to the leftist political magazine Ramparts, itself a target of CIA surveillance. Detailing the agency's obsession with the magazine's writers, former CIA director Stansfield Turner wrote in his 2006 book Burn Before Reading that "the CIA investigation of the staff of Ramparts was definitely illegal." He added: "It was also just a small part of a much larger [President Lyndon] Johnson-initiated project that went by the codeword CHAOS."
Indeed, that program, initiated in 1967 under Johnson and expanded under Nixon, targeted the anti-war movement on U.S. college campuses, in which Chomsky was a major player. In total, the CIA program collected files on at least 10,000 American citizens. But nothing on Chomsky?
Kel McClanahan, a seasoned national security lawyer who submitted the FOIA request on behalf of Maxwell, was surprised by the CIA's final findings. It was "not a Glomar response, not 'we can't tell you if we have records,' an actual 'no records' response," he told me. In fact, the CIA's first denial about a Chomsky file came back in September 2011. McClanahan then appealed the outcome and received another denial letter this month.
"The Agency Release Panel (ARP) considered Mr. Maxwell's appeal and determined that despite thorough and diligent searches of the appropriate records systems, we were unable to locate any records responsive to his requests," read the Feb. 1 CIA letter.
Interestingly, Chomsky, a man forever mistrustful of U.S. government statements, actually believes the CIA's denial. But it's not because he's warming to the agency as he grows older: It's because he's convinced of its incompetence.
"These agencies are good at killing people, targeted assassinations and overthrowing governments," he told me. "But if anyone were to honestly look at intelligence records, they'd find it all to be a very dubious affair as far as competence is concerned." That is to say, the agency may have had no ethical qualms about spying on Chomsky, but whether it did, and successfully organized that information into its databases, is another story. "We shouldn't be overwhelmed at their pretense of superhuman knowledge," he added. "That's mainly for spy novels."
Click to expand...
 
The 'conspiracy' world wouldn't be suprised that there is no CIA file on Chomsky.....they see him as a left wing gatekeeper of the new world order

He lost credibility with many when he refused to acknowledge that 911 was an inside job

He has applied that massive cache of credibility, gained over many decades, to lead many otherwise intelligent people away from the truth about 911

I still think he has a lot of good stuff to say however, but he is dead wrong about 911 and that is THE crux around which many peoples perception of reality hinges

A person who believes the official government version of events has been robbed of an honest view of reality

Here's a very good short clip which offers a great perspective on it:

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/
 
Last edited:
muir said:
He lost credibility with many when he refused to acknowledge that 911 was an inside job
Click to expand...
so like he knows but has been corrupted?
 
Stu said:
so like he knows but has been corrupted?
Click to expand...

Option 1. He truely believes despite all the irregularities in the official story that the government is not involved (even to the extent of allowing the attack to happen if not orchestrating it themselves). Chomsky is VERY thorough....this is a guy that trawls through government literature that most of humanity doesn't even know exists.....his indepth research into human language has overturned the work of the behaviouralists.....unless he is in total denial, how could he not be concerned about all the irregularities....and he doesn't strike me to be the type to be in denial; i think he looks pretty clearly at situations.

Option 2. He doesn't believe the official story but knows that many intellectuals who have spoken out as part of the truth movement have lost their jobs and/or been threatened and intimidated. He doesn't want to lose his nice job at MIT. But Chomsky doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to compromise on his ideals even if it means losing his job. He could get a job elsewhere or even in another country if he wanted.

Option 3. He knows it was an inside job but fears that to blow the lid off it would be to expose the role of Mossad in the event. Knowing as he does that most people don't always act rationally he may, despite often being an outspoken critic of Israeli policies, have decided that there might be an ugly backlash from the US american people against both Israel and jews within the US because despite tha fact most jews are entirely blameless, he knows from history that people won't rationalise like that; he knows that people will just hear 'mossad' and 'israel' and then flip out at jews in general and he doesn't want to be a part in that

Option 4. He knows it was an inside job but thats OK because he is a fully signed up member of the new world order, there to manipulate people on the political left into aquiescing into a slow steady, step by step process towards a centrally controlled global economy and the death of capitalism

Option 5. He has been threatened, or his family has been threatened in order to keep him off the topic or he has been brainwashed!!!

I personally find it very strange that the CIA have no file on a guy that has been criticising the government all this time when they were actually executing people who were against the government as part of Operation Cointelpro, where the CIA would engage in what they called 'black bag' operations; this involved entering into the house of a suspected activist (for example a black panther member) before executing them in their home, before planting a gun on them, packing them into a black bag like a piece of meat and then carting them off to the morgue

If Chomksy was a pre-eminant black or american indian intellectual and not jewish would he still be alive right now?

Please read the following link for more info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_COINTELPRO

The CIA are not accountable to the government. They are recruited at the highest levels from the el-ite and they are part of the shadow system, which is why they keep getting exposed as being involved in drug running, arms dealing, death squads, torture and all the rest....they really are a cancer on this earth
 
Last edited:
Operation Cointelpro is still alive and well. One recent victim would be William Cooper:

[video=youtube;YmvgKx1KoQg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmvgKx1KoQg[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back