The FBI Deputizes Big Business
OMFG!!!!
WTF is going on here. First the president admits we torture using waterboarding. Now, we find out the some in the business world have been deputized. Remember, during Katrina, that some BlackWater mercenaries were deputized and threaten many evacuees. It didn't come out until for weeks, until some investigative journalists heard rumors and began to look into it. Now this:
[The Progressive Magazine]
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.
Shoot to Kill....Are ya kiddin' me. No business should ever have that type of power...EVER. They even have a Stalin-istic card carrying group called InfraGard. Apparently it has been around for a while, but our "wonderful" media didn't think it was a vaild topic to be brought before the American people, and let them decide if this is an acceptable relationship between business and government.
InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.Now there are some relavent roles for business to play in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or a disease pandemic. But that's not where this group's power comes from. InfraGard's power turns on in the event of martial law being declared. And the ACLU, along with other civil rights groups, are not taking the FBI's word for it.
“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.
InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members....
[snip]
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”
To join, each person must be sponsored by “an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization.” The FBI then vets the applicant....
[snip]
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005..........He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”
(emphasis mine)
“There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations—some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers—into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed....
[snip]
In return for being in the know, InfraGard members cooperate with the FBI and Homeland Security. “InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases,” Schneck says. “What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard.”
[snip]
This special status concerns the ACLU.
“The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment,” says Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program. “There’s no ‘business class’ in law enforcement. If there’s information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don’t they just share it with the public? That’s who their real ‘special relationship’ is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends. . . . This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s handing out ‘goodies’ to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery.”
They are turning us into a surveillance society, where every body spies on everybody. So much for the Constitution. Below are some reference documents, and analysis:
[ National Security Presidential Directive 51 ] -- This directive place the US under the control of the Executive Branch, solely, in the event of a "catastrophe". What's so brazen, is the Bush Administration redefines what a catastrophe is.
[ Senate Bill 1959, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Act of 2007 ] -- Unfortunately this is supported by some uninformed Democrats. In a nutshell, what the bill wants to do is to pinpoint where the "disgruntle people" diseffected with their government are. In other words, anyone who speaks out against the government could be arrested under this bill if it is passes. And even though there is a section called, PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM, it delegates authority to the executive branch to "watch out" for civil rights violations. Yeah right.....and what is Bush' track record so far, I digress.
(First Amendment, we don't need no stinkin' freedom of speech....Hail Stalin)
)(Post-Debate) No, The Surge Is Not Working CNN
Well, last night the Democrats had another debate. One that got particularly nasty, but it smoothed out later. As usual the media tried to make every question about race and gender. And for the most part both Hillary, and Obama handled it well. But one question that has always been looming in the background, was on Iraq. One of the moderators, did his best to word the narrative that:
The Surge is Working
IT IS NOT......
Here is today's news
Suicide Bomber Attacks Iraqi School (HuffPo)Sounds like the surge is working, it just that it is the enemy's surge that worked, not ours. But the media, wavering like leaves in the wind, has now chosen to go with meme that "The Surge Worked". And last night at the debate was no different. Just because the media isn't reporting as vigorous, doesn't mean things are going great over there. Here's how it was [ slipped in ] at the debate:
BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber pushing an electric heater on top of a cart packed with explosives attacked a high school north of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing a bystander and injuring 21 people _ mainly youngsters and teachers.
The school attack and other recent bombings against funerals and social gatherings raised the possibility that al-Qaida in Iraq has shifted tactics to focus on so-called soft targets and undermine public confidence that security is improving in Iraq....
JOHNS: Senator Clinton, on the Iraq question, we're here in South Carolina. It's a big military state with a lot of military families. Last week, U.S. military commanders on the ground in Iraq said that Baghdad is now 75 percent secured. There's also important signs of political progress, including de-Baathification, which was basically long awaited. That, of course, was a big benchmark.I want to break-down that highlighted phrase into the following section:
Last week, you said the next president will, quote, "have a war to end in Iraq." In light of the new military and political progress on the ground there in Iraq, are you looking to end this war or win it?
(emphasis mine)
- U.S. military commanders on the ground in Iraq said that Baghdad is now 75 percent secured.
- There's also important signs of political progress, including de-Baathification, which was basically long awaited. That, of course, was a big benchmark.
- In light of the new military and political progress on the ground there in Iraq, are you looking to end this war or win it?
First, we don't know what the U.S. military definition of "secured" is, which is different from the political definition of "secured". I'll take the military at it's word that Baghdad is 75% secured, however, that's tactical and does not infer anything else within Iraq. Yet, the way the CNN moderator phrased it, you would think Iraq consisted of only Baghdad.
Another aspect of this supposed "secured" situation is the returning of the troops. But from what I understand, some of the troops are being brought home, only to be sent off to Afghanistan, because of whacka-mole. The violence isn't decreasing, just rearing its' ugly head in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Two places a majority of the media isn't covering. Thus, the media shows it's laziness, and Americans showcase their attention span. News Flash...we are in 2 wars and one gets almost no coverage, and one get a cheerleading squad. And I know we are all war-tired, but we should have thought about that before we gave this President great deference.
There's also important signs of political progress, including de-Baathification, which was basically long awaited. That, of course, was a big benchmark.
Yes, de-Baathification was a bench mark, but it not happening. There is so much strife between these "Awakening" sunni groups and the Shia controlled "government" (I used the term loosely) that the political goals will never be met. The iraqi government has voiced it's anger at the US for arming these militia groups. It likes arming the Bloods and the Cripts, then expecting them to play nice with law enforcement. Let the media tell it, benchmarks are being met, but [ they are not ].
In light of the new military and political progress on the ground there in Iraq, are you looking to end this war or win it?
The media has just as much to loose with the fake war in Iraq. If there is a silver lining, it is that the Iraq war exposed the neocon methodology as dangerously flawed, exposed right-wing stenographers posing as journalist like Judy Miller, and Michael Gordon, and exposed just how intertwined the two are, thus showcasing the need for true independent media. Fortunately, there are still some good journalist out there but as to the "...end this war or win it.." framing alot of journalist have been using lately, it is important for Democrats to articulate that the Surge is not working, but moreover that it was never intended to work, thus "winning" was never an objective. Take a look at the following articles over the last month and half and tell me the surge is working:
- U.S. presses Iraq on reconciliation
- Iraqi official, educator slained
- Violence marks Gates' Iraq trip
- Bomber targets police in Iraqi oil hub
- Iraqi policewomen are told to surrender their weapons
- Bomber targeting Iraq lawmakers kills 2
- 3 die in attacks on Iraqi volunteers
- Truck bomb kills one at Mosul dam
- Deadly attacks shatter holiday in Iraq
- 4 Iraqi police, civilian killed in suicide attack
- Iraq suicide attacks on the rise
- Iraq's middle class is languishing
- All eyes on the Iraqi army
- 40 killed in Iraq violence, 90 wounded
The al-Qaeda Wing of the GOP
This is hilarious. Get into your best southerner impersonation voice and say this:
I wish the Democratssss would stop helping the 'turist
Well, guess who is actually [ helping the terrorist ]
WASHINGTON — A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday on charges of working for an alleged terrorist fundraising ring that sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.
Mark Deli Siljander, a Michigan Republican when he was in the House, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about being hired to lobby senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.
The 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying _ money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Yes, a REPUBLICAN was caught supporting terrorism. Since REPUBLICANS like the torture technique of waterboarding, this former REPUBLICAN House member would be a perfect candidate.
Did I mention he was a REPUBLICAN......
The Pentagon Planted The "Hyped" Iran Speedboat Incident
Fortunately, we do still have some journalist, and news organizations, that understand their role as the fourth estate. The goal of the media should not be to report it first, but to report it right. Helloooooo......Iraq anybody. In the [ Asia Times ] we get the real deal:
WASHINGTON - Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the January 6 US-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.This is why the armed forces don't need PR people assigned them, the Navy has repudiated what Whitman released. The Navy had a press release that when read didn't hype the event at all. But then Bush and the PR people get a hold of it and becomes we just averted war with Iran. If there was any doubt Bush, and Cheney, really wants war with Iran, it's gone now.
The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations, Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the navy itself.
That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.This could have been a Gulf of Tonkin event if it weren't for great reporting by Asia Times and other [ reporters ]. The unfortunate victims of this is the Navy, which did it's job only to have it cheapened by Bush&Co PR people. Below are some references to the Gulf Of Tonkin incident:
At 9am, Barbara Starr of CNN reported that "military officials" had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out "threatening maneuvers", but had transmitted a message by radio that "I am coming at you" and "you will explode". She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was "in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away".
CBS News broadcast a similar story, adding the detail that the Iranian boats "dropped boxes that could have been filled with explosives into the water". Other news outlets carried almost identical accounts of the incident.
The source of this spate of stories can now be identified as Bryan Whitman, the top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, who gave a press briefing for Pentagon correspondents that morning. Although Whitman did offer a few remarks on the record, most of the Whitman briefing was off the record, meaning that he could not be cited as the source.
In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that US ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away - a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.
I have come to my decision. It’s John Edward for President
After careful consideration I have made decision to support John Edwards for President, during the primaries. Since I'm Georgia I don't get to vote until Feb 5, but I can't wait to vote. I want to discuss why I'm voting for Edwards, and not against Obama and Hillary, since both are equally qualified to be president. And whoever gets the nomination I will support in the general election.
I like the fighting spirit in Edwards. He is raising the issues in a way no one wants to talk about like:
- 47 million without health insurance
- 37 million can just barely feed their families
- 200,000 of our military veterans will go to sleep under a bridge tonight because the current jackass we have as a president wanted to make the war profiteers rich.
- The out-sourcing of hundreds of thousands of jobs just so you America, yes you, can buy cheap things at Walmart, and other places
- College tuition is through the roof
- Constitutional violations like spying on Americans, data mining, starting fake wars, politicizing agencies within the government that should never be politicizing like the Justice Department
With the mega-corporation being the foundation (i.e. behind the veil) for most of what listed above, Edwards is right. You can't sit at the table with entities and sing "Kumbaya". You can't except their money, and challenge then at the same time. Corporation have had a plush deal with the Republicans (and some Dems known as Blue Dogs), but with winds changing they know the Democrats will probably have control of Congress and the Presidency. So they have started donating to Democrats, and unfortunately some dems have fallen for it.
Not Edwards.
As a matter of fact, Edwards is being blacked out by the media, because they too are own by the mega-corporation. And even with that he is still getting an average of 20% of the vote. So this is still a 3-three way race even though those in the pundit world are trying to make it a 2 person race. But what really was the icing on the cake was when I saw this article:
U.S. corporate elite fear candidate Edwards
By Kevin DrawbaughWASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.
[snip]"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes."
"I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.
"The next scariest for business would be Huckabee because of his rhetoric and because he's an unknown."
Edwards is pissing off the right people, indeed. I'll leave you with this vid
For all categories