no comment

NSA SIGINT Seminars for the Press

In an attempt to convey to reporters the sensitivity of classified signals intelligence information and to discourage unnecessary disclosure of intelligence sources and methods, the National Security Agency held a series of by-invitation-only seminars for reporters and editors dubbed "SIGINT 101."

The seminars, which were apparently held on several occasions between 2002 and 2004, were first reported by Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun. See "Spies Prep Reporters on Protecting Secrets," September 27.

The course outline and supporting documents (pdf) that were first obtained by Mr. Gerstein under the Freedom of Information Act provide some additional insight into NSA concerns about the loss of SIGINT sources and the possibility of voluntary steps by the press to help protect them.

"We want to emphasize that we deplore 'leaks' or other unauthorized disclosures of properly classified material," the NSA course module states.

However, given the fact of leaks, "we also want you to understand that in many instances, we believe that reporters can deal with the content of leaks in a way that does not expose intelligence sources and methods."

"We ask that when intelligence information is reported, fragile intelligence source and method information, which is unnecessary to informed debate, not be disclosed along with it."

See SIGINT 101 Seminar Course Module, National Security Agency (2002?).

New Zealand 'terrorist' clampdown: not to be outdone in scare tactics

You need to frighten people in order to pass authoritarian legislation: a technique tried and tested in all forms of systems, including our western 'democracies'.

 

First, this from the Guardian:

Seventeen people were arrested in New Zealand yesterday amid allegations that they had taken part in guerrilla-style training camps. The prominent Maori activist Tame Iti was among those taken into custody. More than 300 police were involved in the raids which also targeted political and environmental activists.

The activists mentioned above include peace activists who had no firearms (a machete was found in one case) and organic vegetable growers.

 

Hundreds marched in protest on Saturday.

Showing a unified front the protest was attended by a wide range of activist groups, and also included family and friends of the accused.

But for many there is also the larger fear of what the arrests represent, and of what could happen if the legislation amending the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 currently before Parliament is passed.

Speaking to the crowd, Auckland Global Peace And Justice organiser John Minto condemned the police’s threats to charge the accused of offences under the terrorism statute.

“They have had 15 months of intensive watching,” he said. "They would know by now whether they have the evidence. They are just using it as a tool to smear these activists with the terrorist brush. These arrests are not about terrorism it is about civil liberties," he said.

The proper context for understanding these police maneuvers and their timing came from

Green Party MP’s, Sue Bradford and Keith Locke ... both at the protest.

Locke spoke saying New Zealand was looking hard for a way to join the war on terror.

“They were happy when [Algerian refugee] Ahmed Zaoui came along, we had our very own terrorist. When that fell through they went after activists.”

Locke also said there are enough provisions under New Zealand’s criminal laws to deal with all these issues, "we don’t need terror laws".

The timing of the raids has also raised suspicion with some of the activists, one told the crowd, “how can they justify it, the police raid these homes the same week this legislation is going before parliament.”

"Its obviously a political maneuver", she said.

The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is presently high up the Parliamentary order paper and may receive a second reading in Parliament this week. The proposed legislation will change New Zealand’s rules about defining terrorist groups.

Among other changes under the proposed new legislation the New Zealand Prime Minister will have the power to designate terrorist groups without any court review.

The new legislation also removes the provision allowing people to support groups designated as terrorists if their goals are human rights and democracy

the emerging military-peacenik alliance

How the Military Can Stop an Iran Attack

The Nation

posted October 9, 2007 (web only)

Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith

[ ... What could be stranger than a group of peace activists petitioning the military to stop a war? And yet there is more logic here than meets the eye.

Asked in an online discussion September 27 whether the Bush Administration will launch a war against Iran, Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest replied, "Frankly, I think the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions."

She acknowledged that she had indulged in a bit of hyperbole, then added, "but not much."

There have been many other hints of military disaffection from plans to attack Iran--indeed, military resistance may help explain why, despite years of rumors about Bush Administration intentions, such an attack has not yet occurred. A Pentagon consultant told Hersh more than a year ago, "There is a war about the war going on inside the building." Hersh also reported that Gen. Peter Pace had forced Bush and Cheney to remove the "nuclear option" from the plans for possible conflict with Iran--in the Pentagon it was known as the April Revolution.

In December, according to Time correspondent Joe Klein, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a secure room known as The Tank. The President was told that "the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities." But the Joint Chiefs were "unanimously opposed to taking that course of action," both because it might not eliminate Iran's nuclear capacity and because Iran could respond devastatingly in Iraq--and in the United States.

In an article published by Inter Press Service, historian and national security policy analyst Gareth Porter reported that Adm. William Fallon, Bush's then-nominee to head the Central Command (Centcom), sent the Defense Department a strongly worded message earlier this year opposing the plan to send a third carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf. In another Inter Press analysis, Porter quotes someone who met with Fallon saying an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch." He added, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional.... There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

Military officers in the field have frequently refuted Bush Administration claims about Iranian arms in Iraq and Afghanistan. Porter says that when a State Department official this June publicly accused Iran of giving arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the US commander of NATO forces there twice denied the claim.

More recently, top brass have warned that the United States is not prepared for new wars. Gen. George Casey, the Army's top commander, recently made a highly unusual personal request for a House Armed Services Committee hearing in which he warned that "we are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies." While this could surely be interpreted as a call for more troops and resources, it may simultaneously be a warning shot against adventures in Iran.

An October 8 report by Tim Shipman in the Telegraph says that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has "taken charge of the forces in the American government opposed to a US military attack on Iran." ... ]

Read full article>>

The "Great Game" Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, October 14, 2007

Preface: The Caspian Sea Summit and the Historical Crossroads of the 21st Century

This article is part of The Sino-Russia Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia (September 23, 2007). For editorial reasons the article is being published by Global Research in three parts. It is strongly advised that readers also study the prior piece.

History is in the making. The Second Summit of Caspian Sea States in Tehran will change the global geo-political environment. This article also gives a strong contextual background to what will be in the backdrop at Tehran. The strategic course of Eurasia and global energy reserves hangs in the balance.

It is no mere chance that before the upcoming summit in Tehran that three important post-Soviet organizations (the Commonwealth of Independents States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Community) simultaneously held meetings in Tajikistan. Nor is it mere coincidence that the SCO and CSTO have signed cooperation agreements during these meetings in Tajikistan, which has effectively made China a semi-formal member of the CSTO alliance. It should be noted that all SCO members are also members of CSTO, aside from China.

This is all in addition to the fact that the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the U.S. Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, were both in Moscow for important, but mostly hushed, discussions with the Kremlin before Vladimir Putin is due to arrive in Iran. This could have been America’s last attempt at breaking the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition in Eurasia. World leaders will watch for any public outcomes from the Russian President’s visit to Tehran. It is also worth noting that NATO’s Secretary-General was in the Caucasus region for a brief visit in regards to NATO expansion. The Russian President will also be in Germany for a summit with Angela Merkel before arriving in Tehran.

On five fronts there is antagonism between the U.S. and its allies with Russia, China, and their allies: East Africa, the Korean Peninsula, Indo-China, the Middle East, and the Balkans. While the Korean front seems to have calmed down, the Indo-China front has been heated up with the start of instability in Myanmar (Burma). This is part of the broader effort to encircle the titans of the Eurasian landmass, Russia and China. Simultaneous to all this, NATO is preparing itself for a possible showdown with Serbia and Russia over Kosovo. These preparations include NATO military exercises in Croatia and the Adriatic Sea.

In May, 2007 the Secretary-General of CSTO, Nikolai Bordyuzha invited Iran to apply to the Eurasian military pact; “If Iran applies in accordance with our charter, [CSTO] will consider the application,” he told reporters. In the following weeks, the CSTO alliance has also announced with greater emphasis, like NATO, that it too is prepared to get involved in Afghanistan and global “peacekeeping” operations. This is a challenge to NATO’s global objectives and in fact an announcement that NATO no longer has a monopoly as the foremost global military organization.

The globe is becoming further militarized than what it already is by two military blocs. In addition, Moscow has also stated that it will now charge domestic prices for Russian weaponry and military hardware to all CSTO members. Also, reports about the strengthening prospects of a large-scale Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq are getting stronger, which is deeply related to Anglo-American plans for balkanizing Iraq and sculpting a “New Middle East.” A global showdown is in the works.

Finally, the Second Summit of Caspian Sea States will also finalize the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Energy resources, ecology, energy cooperation, security, and defensive ties will also be discussed. The outcome of this summit will decide the nature of Russo-Iranian relations and the fate of Eurasia. What happens in Tehran may decide the course of the the rest of this century. Humanity is at an important historical crossroad. This is why I felt that it was important to release this second portion of the original article before the Second Summit of the Caspian Sea States.

Read on>>

Today's Must Read

TPMMuckraker

By Spencer Ackerman - October 18, 2007

 

"...If you liked the Protect America Act -- President Bush's sweeping revision to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act signed into law in August -- you're going to love the soon-to-be-unveiled surveillance bill from the Senate intelligence committee. President Bush and Admiral Mike McConnell do, at least. A day after the White House made available to the committee "millions" of pages of material documenting how the telecommunications industry complied with warrantless requests for Americans' international communications after 9/11, the committee wrote into its bill a provision granting the industry retroactive immunity from customer lawsuits that the White House has long desired.

It's unclear what else the bill will contain. The House Democratic surveillance measure that Republicans blocked yesterday allowed for non-individualized court orders approving surveillance of targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S. and possessing "foreign intelligence information," a provision that has divided civil libertarians. That measure is too restrictive to the Bush administration, which wants all foreign-directed surveillance outside the purview of the FISA Court, even in cases where foreigners call into the United States. Until the Senate bill is released today, it won't be clear whether there's a prior-review role for the court in foreign-directed surveillance..."   Full article>>