Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #767 The Adventures of Eddie the Friendly Spook, Part 11: The Destabilization of the NSA and GCHQ

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. (The flash dri­ve includes the anti-fas­cist books avail­able on this site.)

Lis­ten: MP3

Side 1  Side 2   (NB: Side 1 is mis-intro­duced as “FTR #766, not 767.” Note, also, that the date is 1/5/2014, not 1/5/2013.)

Intro­duc­tion: Pre­vi­ous­ly, we have not­ed that Edward Snow­den’s activ­i­ties make no sense in terms of a strug­gle for civ­il lib­er­ties, free speech, uphold­ing the Bill of Rights or any­thing of the sort. Snow­den is a spook on a very obvi­ous intel­li­gence “op.” (See FTR #762.)

Snow­den is also a fas­cist, inex­tr­ti­ca­bly linked with a milieu that favors slav­ery, jus­ti­fies the Con­fed­er­ate States of Amer­i­ca, wants the South to secede again, does­n’t think women should be allowed to vote, and is explic­it­ly opposed to democ­ra­cy. (See FTR #756.)

In the con­text of Snow­den’s actions as an intel­li­gence oper­a­tion, this broad­cast under­scores the appar­ent desta­bi­liza­tion of the NSA and the British GCHQ.

The broad­cast begins by ana­lyz­ing L’Af­faire Snow­den as a desta­bi­liza­tion oper­a­tion against Oba­ma. A recent law­suit against the NSA about its spy­ing oper­a­tions was brought by Lar­ry Klay­man, who is far more than just the “con­ser­v­a­tive” that he is labeled. Klay­man is an extreme right-winger who called on the “Mus­lim” Oba­ma to put down the “Quran” and come out of the White House with his hands up!

The judge who ruled favor­ably on Klay­man’s suit was appoint­ed by George W. Bush. A loy­al Bush fam­i­ly run­ning dog, Leon helped cov­er-up the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal, the Octo­ber Sur­prise and was involved with the desta­bi­liza­tion of the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion over the non-exis­tent White­wa­ter “crimes.”

High­light­ing the desta­bi­liza­tion of the NSA, we note that Snowden’s data theft was so mas­sive that NSA may nev­er know just how much infor­ma­tion he took.

Snowden’s vast doc­u­ment theft make NO sense in terms of pro­tec­tion of per­sonal pri­vacy or civ­il lib­er­ties. It appears that his “data dump” (per­haps as many as 1.7 mil­lion doc­u­ments) would per­mit a would-be male­fac­tor to defeat NSA sur­veil­lance. Pur­loin­ing files on the mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties of for­eign coun­tries and the per­sonal lives of GCHQ oper­a­tives (which Snow­den has done) has noth­ing to do with civ­il lib­er­ties. Snowden’s “op” is a hos­tile counter-intel­li­gence oper­a­tion.

It is worth not­ing that Snow­den could not pos­si­bly have reviewed all of the doc­u­ments he pur­loined. He appears to have been direct­ed by some very knowl­edge­able peo­ple, as well as being assist­ed in his inter­na­tion­al flight.

Among the most dev­as­tat­ing con­se­quences of L’Affaire Snow­den may be the pre­ven­tion of an effec­tive cyberde­fense. The results of this could be tru­ly cat­a­stroph­ic.

One of the most impor­tant ele­ments of the analy­sis high­lights a reveal­ing arti­cle in Der Spiegel The sto­ry notes two VERY impor­tant things: the same Angela Merkel who is “shocked, shocked” at what the NSA is doing has not only put road­blocks in Euro­pean data pri­vacy rules designed to guard against unwar­ranted gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance, but is active­ly seek­ing admit­tance to the “Five Eyes” club, which dates to World War II!

She’s not “shocked, shocked” at all! She wants access to the Five Eyes, which means–DUH–that she APPROVES of this very thing! Ger­many and the BND may very well be, in effect, hold­ing Amer­i­can inter­net busi­ness hostage to inclu­sion in the “Five Eyes” club.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

  • France’s deci­sion to ramp-up its elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance pro­gram with no judi­cial over­sight, to speak of.
  • Oba­ma’s dilem­ma over sat­is­fy­ing the needs of nation­al secu­ri­ty or the inter­net com­pa­nies, which favor pri­va­tiz­ing meta­da­ta reten­tion, in keep­ing with the rec­om­men­da­tions of the Pres­i­den­tial pan­el weigh­ing changes.
  • For­mer NSA chief Michael Hay­den’s view that pri­va­tiz­ing the stor­age of meta­da­ta would make it less secure than hav­ing the NSA do it. He also notes that the Fourth Amend­ment is not an inter­na­tion­al treaty and does­n’t apply to for­eign cit­i­zens.
  • Glenn Green­wald’s hus­band David Miran­da was inter­cept­ed at Heathrow Air­port with sen­si­tive doc­u­ments con­tain­ing infor­ma­tion about Brti­tish intel­li­gence offi­cers’ per­son­al lives and fam­i­lies. That, too, has NOTHING to do with civ­il lib­er­ties, pri­va­cy, etc. It is hos­tile coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence.
  • Con­trary to Green­wald and Miran­da’s pre­vi­ous state­ments, Miran­da has been deeply involved with the han­dling of NSA doc­u­ments.
  • Lar­ry Klay­man’s role in the White­wa­ter desta­bi­liza­tion of Bill Clin­ton. Judge Leon was also involved with the White­wa­ter affair.
  • Review of Nation­al Alliance leader and founder William Luther Pierce’s 1998 fore­shad­ow­ing of the 9/11 attacks. (The Nation­al Alliance was one of Glenn Green­wald’s Nazi clients when he was an attor­ney.)
  • Review of the fact that the cli­mac­tic episode of The Turn­er Diaries is a low-lev­el, sui­cide aer­i­al attack on the Pen­ta­gon.
  • Both The Turn­er Diaries and Ser­pen­t’s Walk–both pub­lished by Green­wald’s client The Nation­al Alliance–feature a Nazi takeover of the Unit­ed States after the coun­try is destroyed by a series of WMD ter­ror­ist attacks. Before that could hap­pen, one would have to neu­tral­ize the NSA, some­thing that Snow­den’s doc­u­ments would per­mit a male­fac­tor to do. THINK ABOUT IT!
  • UPDATE: Angela Merkel has pro­posed an EU-wide com­mu­ni­ca­tions sys­tem to coun­ter­act NSA and GCHQ spy­ing, even as Ger­many ramps up its own counter-intel­li­gence and spy­ing activ­i­ties.

1a. Begin­ning with review of mate­r­i­al cov­ered years ago on For The Record, the pro­gram notes that the infor­ma­tion about NSA and GCHQ hoover­ing up elec­tron­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tions is not new. (Mr. Emory has been dis­cussing this for years, ref­er­enc­ing the analy­sis from open sources.) A New York Times arti­cle from 9/6/2001 high­lights a Euro­pean Par­lia­ment report that was com­piled over the course of a year. The report notes, among oth­er things, that sev­er­al Euro­pean coun­tries were doing sim­i­lar things.

“World Brief­ing | Europe: Report On U.S. Spy Sys­tem” by Suzanne Daley; The New York Times; 9/6/2001.

[Notice when this was published–9/6/2001.–D.E.] . . . The Unit­ed States-led spy­ing sys­tem known as Ech­e­lon can mon­i­tor vir­tu­ally every com­mu­ni­ca­tion in the world — by e‑mail, phone or fax — that bounces off a satel­lite, the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment was told. But in report­ing on a year­long study of the sys­tem that was prompt­ed by con­cern that Amer­i­can com­pa­nies were using data from the sys­tem to gain a com­pet­i­tive edge, Ger­hard Schmid, a Ger­man mem­ber of the Par­lia­ment, said that many Euro­pean coun­tries had sim­i­lar abil­i­ties . . .

1b. Sup­ple­ment­ing FTR #762, we note, again, the extreme right-wing nature of the forces under­ly­ing Snow­den’s “Op.” This part of the broad­cast sup­ple­ments that pro­gram, ana­lyz­ing L’Af­faire Snow­den as a desta­bi­liza­tion oper­a­tion against Oba­ma. A recent law­suit against the NSA about its spy­ing oper­a­tions was brought by Lar­ry Klay­man, who is far more than just the “con­ser­v­a­tive” that he is labeled. Klay­man is an extreme right-winger who called on the “Mus­lim” Oba­ma to put down the “Quran” and come out of the White House with his hands up!

“Ral­li­er tells Oba­ma to ‘put the Quran down’ ” by Ash­ley Kil­lough and Shan­non Travis and Bri­an Rokus; CNN; 10/13/2013.

Angered by the clo­sure of nation­al land­marks due to the par­tial gov­ern­ment shut­down, a crowd of con­ser­v­a­tives removed bar­ri­cades Sun­day at the World War II Memo­r­i­al and the Lin­coln Memo­r­i­al as they ral­lied against Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma and Democ­rats for their role in the ongo­ing stale­mate.

High-pro­file speak­ers with close ties to the tea par­ty appeared at the event, includ­ing for­mer Alas­ka Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. . . .

. . . . One speak­er went as far as say­ing the pres­i­dent was a Mus­lim and sep­a­rate­ly urged the crowd of hun­dreds to ini­ti­ate a peace­ful upris­ing.

“I call upon all of you to wage a sec­ond Amer­i­can non­vi­o­lent rev­o­lu­tion, to use civ­il dis­obe­di­ence, and to demand that this pres­i­dent leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to fig­u­ra­tive­ly come out with his hands up,” said Lar­ry Klay­man of Free­dom Watch, a con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal advo­ca­cy group. . . .”

2. Klay­man and Judge Leon (dis­cussed below) worked togeth­er on the White­wa­ter desta­bi­liza­tion of Clin­ton.

“Lar­ry Klay­man, Con­ser­v­a­tive Attack Dog, Slams Fox News And Bush” by Mar­cus Baram; Huff­in­g­ton Post; 3/18/2010.

. . . . the fastest trig­ger fin­ger in D.C. when it comes to fil­ing legal briefs, the founder of Judi­cial Watch is best known for play­ing an instru­men­tal role in fuel­ing the White­wa­ter cri­sis that drowned Pres­i­dent Clin­ton in mul­ti­ple scan­dals. . . .

3. The judge who ruled favor­ably on Klay­man’s suit was appoint­ed by George W. Bush. His name is Richard J. Leon, and we will see more about him below.

“Judge Ques­tions Legal­ity of N.S.A. Phone Records” by Char­lie Sav­age; The New York Times; 12/16/2013.

A fed­eral dis­trict judge ruled on Mon­day that the Nation­al Secu­rity Agency pro­gram that is sys­tem­at­i­cally keep­ing records of all Amer­i­cans’ phone calls most like­ly vio­lates the Con­sti­tu­tion, describ­ing its tech­nol­ogy as “almost Orwellian” and sug­gest­ing that James Madi­son would be “aghast” to learn that the gov­ern­ment was encroach­ing on lib­erty in such a way.

Judge Richard J. Leon of the Dis­trict of Colum­bia ordered the gov­ern­ment to stop col­lect­ing data on the per­sonal calls of the two plain­tiffs in the case and to destroy the records of their call­ing his­tory. But the judge, appoint­ed to the bench in 2002 by Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, stayed his injunc­tion “in light of the sig­nif­i­cant nation­al secu­rity inter­ests at stake in this case and the nov­elty of the con­sti­tu­tional issues,” allow­ing the gov­ern­ment time to appeal it, a mat­ter that he said could take at least six months. The case is the first in which a fed­eral judge who is not on the For­eign Intel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court, which autho­rized the once-secret pro­gram, has exam­ined the bulk data col­lec­tion on behalf of some­one who is not a crim­i­nal defen­dant.

The Jus­tice Depart­ment has said that 15 sep­a­rate judges on the sur­veil­lance court have held on 35 occa­sions that the call­ing data pro­gram is legal. It also marks the first suc­cess­ful legal chal­lenge brought against the pro­gram since it was revealed in June after leaks by the for­mer N.S.A. con­trac­tor Edward J. Snow­den. . . . .

. . . .. . . . “I act­ed on my belief that the N.S.A.’s mass sur­veil­lance pro­grams would not with­stand a con­sti­tu­tion­al chal­lenge, and that the Amer­i­can pub­lic deserved a chance to see these issues deter­mined by open courts,” Mr. Snow­den said in his state­ment. It was dis­trib­uted by Glenn Green­wald, a jour­nal­ist who received leaked doc­u­ments from Mr. Snow­den and wrote the first arti­cle about the bulk data col­lec­tion. “Today, a secret pro­gram autho­rized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to vio­late Amer­i­cans’ rights,” the state­ment said. “It is the first of many.” . . . .

. . . . The case was brought by sev­eral plain­tiffs led by Lar­ry Klay­man, a con­ser­v­a­tive legal activist. Mr. Klay­man, who rep­re­sented him­self and the oth­er plain­tiffs, said in an inter­view on Mon­day that he was seek­ing to turn the case into a class action on behalf of all Amer­i­cans. “I’m extreme­ly grat­i­fied that Judge Leon had the courage to make this rul­ing,” he said. “He is an Amer­i­can hero.” . . . .

4. A loy­al Bush fam­i­ly run­ning dog, Leon helped cov­er-up the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal, the Octo­ber Sur­prise and was involved with the desta­bi­liza­tion of the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion over the non-exis­tent White­wa­ter “crimes.”

“Who Is Judge Richard Leon?” by Robert Par­ry; Con­sor­tium News; 11/9/2011.

. . . Leon was appoint­ed to his life­time judi­cial post by George W. Bush in 2002 after Leon had “earned” the grat­i­tude of the Bush Fam­ily by pro­tect­ing its inter­ests as an aggres­sive and reli­able Repub­li­can legal appa­ratchik on Capi­tol Hill. There, the heavy-set Leon gained a rep­u­ta­tion as a par­ti­san bul­ly who made sure polit­i­cally charged inves­ti­ga­tions reached a desired out­come, what­ever the facts.

In the 1990s, Leon served as spe­cial coun­sel to the House Bank­ing Com­mit­tee as it trans­formed Pres­i­dent Bill Clinton’s minor White­wa­ter real estate deal into a major scan­dal that even­tu­ally led to the House vote to impeach Clin­ton in 1998 and thus set the stage for Bush’s dis­puted elec­tion vic­tory in 2000.

How­ever, Leon’s most impor­tant work for the Bush­es may have come in the 1980s and ear­ly 1990s when he helped con­struct legal jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for Repub­li­can law-break­ing and sought to intim­i­date Iran-Con­tra-relat­ed wit­nesses who came for­ward to expose GOP wrong­do­ing.

In 1987, when Rep. Dick Cheney, R‑Wyoming, was lead­ing the Repub­li­can coun­terof­fen­sive against the Iran-Con­tra inves­ti­ga­tion into evi­dence that Pres­i­dent Ronald Rea­gan and Vice Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush had engaged in a wide-rang­ing con­spir­acy involv­ing ille­gal weapons ship­ments and mon­ey trans­fers, Leon stepped for­ward as deputy chief coun­sel on the Repub­li­can side.

Leon worked with Cheney not only in fend­ing off accu­sa­tions of wrong­do­ing, but in com­ing up with a counter-argu­ment that accused Con­gress of intrud­ing on for­eign pol­icy pre­rog­a­tives of the Pres­i­dent.

“Con­gres­sional actions to lim­it the Pres­i­dent in this area … should be reviewed with a con­sid­er­able degree of skep­ti­cism,” the Repub­li­can minor­ity report said. “If they inter­fere with the core pres­i­den­tial for­eign pol­icy func­tions, they should be struck down.”

In 2005 as vice pres­i­dent, Cheney harkened back to that Iran-Con­tra minor­ity report in defend­ing George W. Bush’s asser­tion of unlim­ited pres­i­den­tial pow­ers dur­ing wartime.

“If you want ref­er­ence to an obscure text, go look at the minor­ity views that were filed with the Iran-Con­tra com­mit­tee,” Cheney told a reporter. Cheney said those old argu­ments “are very good in lay­ing out a robust view of the president’s pre­rog­a­tives with respect to the con­duct of espe­cially for­eign pol­icy and nation­al secu­rity mat­ters.”

So, one could say that Richard Leon was there at the birth of what became George W. Bush’s impe­r­ial pres­i­den­cy.

Cov­er-up of Crimes

But Leon’s cru­cial work went beyond build­ing a legal frame­work for Repub­li­can pres­i­dents to ignore the law. More sig­nif­i­cantly, he con­ducted cov­er-ups of their crimes.

In 1992, when a House task force was exam­in­ing evi­dence that Rea­gan and Bush began their secret con­tacts with Iran in 1980 while try­ing to unseat Pres­i­dent Jim­my Carter, Leon was the Repub­li­can point man to make sure noth­ing too dam­ag­ing came out. Leon served as chief minor­ity coun­sel to the House task force inves­ti­gat­ing the so-called Octo­ber Sur­prise alle­ga­tions.

5. France is ramp­ing up its already for­mi­da­ble elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance capa­bil­i­ty, with no sub­stan­tive judi­cial over­sight!

“France Broad­ens Its Sur­veil­lance Pow­er” by Scott Sayare; The New York Times; 12/15/2013.

For all their indig­na­tion last sum­mer, when the scope of the Unit­ed States’ mass data col­lec­tion began to be made pub­lic, the French are hard­ly inno­cents in the realm of elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance. With­in days of the reports about the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agen­cy’s activ­i­ties, it was revealed that French intel­li­gence ser­vices oper­at­ed a sim­i­lar sys­tem, with sim­i­lar­ly min­i­mal over­sight.

And last week, with lit­tle pub­lic debate, the leg­is­la­ture approved a law that crit­ics feared would marked­ly expand elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance of French res­i­dents and busi­ness­es.

The pro­vi­sion, qui­et­ly passed as part of a rou­tine mil­i­tary spend­ing bill, defines the con­di­tions under which intel­li­gence agen­cies may gain access to, or record tele­phone con­ver­sa­tions, e‑mails, Inter­net activ­i­ty, per­son­al loca­tion data and oth­er elec­tron­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tions.

The law pro­vides for no judi­cial over­sight and allows elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance for a broad range of pur­pos­es, includ­ing “nation­al secu­ri­ty,” the pro­tec­tion of France’s “sci­en­tif­ic and eco­nom­ic poten­tial” and pre­ven­tion of “ter­ror­ism” or “crim­i­nal­i­ty.” . . . .

6a. Snow­den’s data theft was so mas­sive that NSA may nev­er know just how much infor­ma­tion he took.

“Offi­cials Say U.S. May Nev­er Know Extent of Snowden’s Leaks” by Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt; The New York Times; 12/14/2013.

Amer­i­can intel­li­gence and law enforce­ment inves­ti­ga­tors have con­clud­ed that they may nev­er know the entire­ty of what the for­mer Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency con­trac­tor Edward J. Snow­den extract­ed from clas­si­fied gov­ern­ment com­put­ers before leav­ing the Unit­ed States, accord­ing to senior gov­ern­ment offi­cials.

Inves­ti­ga­tors remain in the dark about the extent of the data breach part­ly because the N.S.A. facil­i­ty in Hawaii where Mr. Snow­den worked — unlike oth­er N.S.A. facil­i­ties — was not equipped with up-to-date soft­ware that allows the spy agency to mon­i­tor which cor­ners of its vast com­put­er land­scape its employ­ees are nav­i­gat­ing at any giv­en time.

Six months since the inves­ti­ga­tion began, offi­cials said Mr. Snow­den had fur­ther cov­ered his tracks by log­ging into clas­si­fied sys­tems using the pass­words of oth­er secu­ri­ty agency employ­ees, as well as by hack­ing fire­walls installed to lim­it access to cer­tain parts of the sys­tem. . . .

6b. Snow­den’s vast doc­u­ment theft make NO sense in terms of pro­tec­tion of per­son­al pri­va­cy or civ­il lib­er­ties. It appears that his “data dump” of some 1.7 mil­lion doc­u­ments would per­mit a would-be male­fac­tor to defeat NSA sur­veil­lance. Pur­loin­ing files on the mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties of for­eign coun­tries and the per­son­al lives of GCHQ oper­a­tives (which Snow­den has done) have noth­ing to do with civ­il lib­er­ties.

Note that there is NO WAY that Snow­den could pos­si­bly have reviewed all 1.7 mil­lion doc­u­ments.

Snow­den’s “op” is a hos­tile counter-intel­li­gence oper­a­tion.

“Snow­den Still Hold­ing ‘Keys to the King­dom’ ” by Wal­ter Pin­cus; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 12/18/2013.

We’ve yet to see the full impact of for­mer Nation­al Secu­rity Agency con­trac­tor Edward Snowden’s unau­tho­rized down­load­ing of high­ly clas­si­fied intel­li­gence doc­u­ments.

Among the rough­ly 1.7 mil­lion doc­u­ments he walked away with — the vast major­ity of which have not been made pub­lic — are high­ly sen­si­tive, spe­cific intel­li­gence reports, as well as cur­rent and his­toric require­ments the White House has giv­en the agency to guide its col­lec­tion activ­i­ties, accord­ing to a senior gov­ern­ment offi­cial with knowl­edge of the sit­u­a­tion.

The lat­ter cat­e­gory involves about 2,000 unique task­ings that can run to 20 pages each and give rea­sons for selec­tive tar­get­ing to NSA col­lec­tors and ana­lysts. These orders alone may run 31,500 pages.

If dis­closed, that infor­ma­tion would reveal vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties with­in U. S. intel­li­gence gath­er­ing at the strate­gic lev­el, the offi­cial said.

...

Where the copies of these sen­si­tive task­ing doc­u­ments are is an unan­swered ques­tion.

Snow­den, in Hong Kong, dis­trib­uted NSA doc­u­ments dur­ing the first week in June to three jour­nal­ists — Glenn Green­wald, doc­u­men­tary film­maker Lau­ra Poitras and Bar­ton Gell­man. Gellman’s sto­ries based on them have been pub­lished in The Wash­ing­ton Post.

Snow­den went pub­lic June 9, after the first sto­ries appeared. Then he went into hid­ing.

On June 24, the South Chi­na Morn­ing Post pub­lished a sto­ry based on a June 12 inter­view with Snow­den in which he indi­cated that he had more doc­u­ments to leak. “If I have time to go through this infor­ma­tion, I would like to make it avail­able to jour­nal­ists in each coun­try to make their own assess­ment, inde­pen­dent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowl­edge of U.S. net­work oper­a­tions against their peo­ple should be pub­lished,” Snow­den was quot­ed as say­ing.

On July 14, the Asso­ci­ated Press pub­lished a sto­ry in which Green­wald said that Snow­den — then in Moscow at the air­port — had “lit­er­ally thou­sands of doc­u­ments” that con­sti­tute “basi­cally the instruc­tion man­ual for how the NSA is built.” Green­wald, who said he had spo­ken to Snow­den hours ear­lier, told the AP that in order to prove his cred­i­bil­ity Snow­den “had to take ones that includ­ed very sen­si­tive, detailed blue­prints of how the NSA does what they do.”

These doc­u­ments, Green­wald said, “would allow some­body who read them to know exact­ly how the NSA does what it does, which would in turn allow them to evade that sur­veil­lance or repli­cate it.”

But, Green­wald added, Snow­den had insist­ed they not be made pub­lic. On July 19, Green­wald told Ger­man pub­lic broad­caster ARD that Snow­den in June in Hong Kong had giv­en him and Poitras about 9,000 to 10,000 top-secret doc­u­ments.

On Oct. 17, the New York Times’ James Risen pub­lished a sto­ry based on an inter­view with Snow­den in which he said he did not take any NSA doc­u­ments with him to Rus­sia, where he now has a year-long res­i­dency per­mit.

Green­wald recent­ly told ABC News, “We pub­lished only a small frac­tion of the ones that we have been giv­en so far because we have gone through each of them and made sure that noth­ing we are pub­lish­ing endan­gers human lives.”

Still, there are “a lot of very sig­nif­i­cant sto­ries that are yet to be report­ed,” he said dur­ing an inter­view for an ABC News spe­cial to be aired this month.

So where are the task­ing doc­u­ments? I’ve not asked Gell­man, Green­wald or Poitras because were I in their posi­tions I would not say one way or the oth­er.

The NSA’s Led­gett con­sid­ers them so impor­tant that the secu­rity of those doc­u­ments is worth hav­ing a dis­cus­sion with Snow­den about amnesty.

“My per­sonal view is, yes, it’s worth hav­ing a con­ver­sa­tion about. I would need assur­ances that the remain­der of the data could be secured, and my bar for those assur­ances would be very high,” Led­gett said. . . .

7. Among the most dev­as­tat­ing con­se­quences of L’Af­faire Snow­den may be the neu­tral­iza­tion of an effec­tive cyberde­fense. The results of this could be tru­ly cat­a­stroph­ic.

“N.S.A. Leaks Make Plan for Cyberde­fense Unlike­ly” by David E. Sanger; The New York Times; 8/13/2013.

Even while rapid­ly expand­ing its elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance around the world, the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency has lob­bied inside the gov­ern­ment to deploy the equiv­a­lent of a “Star Wars” defense for America’s com­put­er net­works, designed to inter­cept cyber­at­tacks before they could crip­ple pow­er plants, banks or finan­cial mar­kets.

But admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials say the plan, cham­pi­oned by Gen. Kei­th B. Alexan­der, the direc­tor of the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency and head of the Pentagon’s Cyber Com­mand, has vir­tu­al­ly no chance of mov­ing for­ward giv­en the back­lash against the N.S.A. over the recent dis­clo­sures about its sur­veil­lance pro­grams.

Senior agency offi­cials con­cede that much of the tech­nol­o­gy need­ed to fil­ter mali­cious soft­ware, known as mal­ware, by search­ing incom­ing mes­sages for signs of pro­grams designed to steal data, or attack banks or ener­gy firms, is strik­ing­ly sim­i­lar to the tech­nol­o­gy the N.S.A. already uses for sur­veil­lance.

“The plan was always a lit­tle vague, at least as Kei­th described it, but today it may be Snowden’s biggest sin­gle vic­tim,” one senior intel­li­gence offi­cial said recent­ly, refer­ring to Edward J. Snow­den, the for­mer N.S.A. con­trac­tor who released doc­u­ments reveal­ing details of many of the agency’s sur­veil­lance pro­grams.

“What­ev­er trust was there is now gone,” the offi­cial added. “I mean, who would believe the N.S.A. when it insists it is block­ing Chi­nese attacks but not using the same tech­nol­o­gy to read your e‑mail?” . . . .

8. Snow­den also pur­loined scores of thou­sands of files on the British GCHQ, includ­ing infor­ma­tion about British intel­li­gence offi­cers and their fam­i­lies. This, too, is not some­thing that can be jus­ti­fied by con­cerns for “civ­il lib­er­ties.” This is hos­tile coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence.

“David Miran­da Accused of Car­ry­ing Secrets that Threat­ened Spies’ Lives. This Looks Bad for Glenn” by Tim Stan­ley; The Tele­graph; 8/20/2013.

Remem­ber that a cou­ple of weeks ago Glenn Green­wald’s hus­band was stopped at Heathrow air­port, detained and had his elec­tron­ic equip­ment seized? Well, we now have some idea of what was on it – and it does­n’t make Glenn look good.

The high court has just grant­ed the police pow­ers to pur­sue an inves­ti­ga­tion into pos­si­ble crimes of ter­ror­ism and breach­es of the Offi­cial Secrets Act as a result of analysing some of the data tak­en from Miran­da. And what was that data? The Gov­ern­men­t’s accessed just a small por­tion of an aston­ish­ing 58,000 pages of intel­li­gence doc­u­ments and, accord­ing to a wit­ness state­ment by Oliv­er Rob­bins, deputy nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er to the Cab­i­net, it includes: “per­son­al infor­ma­tion of UK intel­li­gence offi­cers, any com­pro­mise of which would result in a risk to their lives and those of their fam­i­ly mem­bers.” Rob­bins argued that if this data had got into the pub­lic sphere then it would have made spies and their loved ones vul­ner­a­ble to attack or recruit­ment by hos­tile forces. He said that the mate­r­i­al was, “high­ly like­ly to describe tech­niques which have been cru­cial in life-sav­ing counter-ter­ror­ist oper­a­tions, and oth­er intel­li­gence activ­i­ties vital to UK nation­al secu­ri­ty.” Com­pro­mis­ing it “would do seri­ous dam­age to UK nation­al secu­ri­ty and ulti­mate­ly risk lives”. The Gov­ern­ment will now seek to dis­cov­er if that com­pro­mise has tak­en place.

Miran­da’s lawyer said in reply that, “Mr Miran­da does not accept the asser­tions they have made.” Pre­sum­ably, this means that he does not accept the asser­tion that the data he was car­ry­ing threat­ened UK nation­al secu­ri­ty and even the lives of its oper­a­tives. Yet this some­what con­tra­dicts some­thing Miran­da told The Guardian two weeks ago. Back then, he said, “I don’t look at doc­u­ments. I don’t even know if it was doc­u­ments that I was car­ry­ing.” So if he did­n’t look at the doc­u­ments, how can he know that they did­n’t include the kind of infor­ma­tion that the UK Gov­ern­ment alleges? . . . .

9. Green­wald and his hus­band, David Miran­da, have been less than can­did with regard to Miran­da’s portage of infor­ma­tion through Heathrow. Por­trayed as a “mar­tyr to the cause” by the media, Miran­da has–contrary to his and Green­wald’s pre­vi­ous statements–been deeply involved with Green­wald’s activ­i­ties, accord­ing to his lat­est state­ments.

This sheds fur­ther light on Wern­er Achatz, Green­wald’s part­ner for 11 years and law part­ner dur­ing the peri­od in which he was run­ning legal inter­fer­ence for Nazi mur­der­ers.

“Green­wald’s Part­ner David Miran­da Pro­filed at Buz­zfeed, with a Rad­i­cal­ly Dif­fer­ent Sto­ry” by Charles John­son; Lit­tle Green Foot­balls; 6/21/2013.

This new Buz­zfeed arti­cle on Glenn Greenwald’s part­ner David Miran­da is obvi­ous­ly intend­ed to be sup­port­ive, but it could end up sab­o­tag­ing Miranda’s own case with the British gov­ern­ment — because in the course of try­ing to prove that Miran­da was not a “mule,” author Natasha Var­gas-Coop­er actu­al­ly ends up expos­ing anoth­er bla­tant series of lies by Green­wald and Miran­da about Miranda’s deten­tion at Heathrow Air­port: David Miran­da Is Nobody’s Errand Boy.

After I spent sev­er­al weeks with Miran­da and Green­wald in and around their home in the upscale, artist-friend­ly Rio neigh­bor­hood of Gavea over the last month, one thing has become very clear: David Miran­da knew exact­ly what he was doing. To believe he was played as some type of dupe or mule by Green­wald not only ignores the real nature of their rela­tion­ship but also assumes that there’s some safer way to trans­port sen­si­tive doc­u­ments across the globe. Is there any device more fail-safe and secure than the per­son you love the most? Does Apple make that sort of prod­uct?

Miran­da knew very well that he was trav­el­ing from Rio to Berlin to see Greenwald’s report­ing part­ner, doc­u­men­tar­i­an Lau­ra Poitras, and that he would be return­ing through the U.K., all the time car­ry­ing a heav­i­ly encrypt­ed flash dri­ve direct­ly relat­ed to the trove of doc­u­ments that for­mer and now noto­ri­ous CIA employ­ee Edward Snow­den had vac­u­umed from the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency and had giv­en to Green­wald ear­li­er in the year.

The sec­tions I’ve set in bold text are very inter­est­ing, giv­en these state­ments by Miran­da and Green­wald when they were inter­viewed by CNN’s Ander­son Coop­er short­ly after the inci­dent . . . .

. . . . COOPER: David, I know you — you had said that they took a lap­top, mem­o­ry sticks, an exter­nal hard dri­ve, your cell phone and more. Do you know what were stored on those devices? What — were there — was there clas­si­fied mate­r­i­al?

MIRANDA: I don’t know that. I mean I was just tak­ing the file — those mate­ri­als back to Glenn. I mean, you know, Glenn, being work­ing with a lot of sto­ries along the years, I didn’t quite fol­low every­thing that he writes every day. I can’t fol­low him because I have to have a life. And I mean I can’t know every­thing that he’s been work­ing with.

So back in August, Miran­da and Green­wald were play­ing it as if Miran­da were com­plete­ly igno­rant of what he was car­ry­ing. He “didn’t fol­low” every­thing Green­wald writes, because he had his own life. Doc­u­ments? What doc­u­ments?

Both of them seem to be slight­ly smirk­ing in this video, like they were shar­ing some kind of secret joke at Ander­son Cooper’s expense — and they were. Because today, Miranda’s sto­ry is rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent:

“I have been involved in every aspect of Glenn’s life, why wouldn’t I be a part of this?” Miran­da asserts over lunch at a fash­ion mall in Rio’s São Con­ra­do neigh­bor­hood the next after­noon. “I think what Snow­den did was hero­ic. Glenn and Laura’s report­ing is so impor­tant. It caused a seri­ous debate about pri­va­cy and inter­net free­dom in my coun­try and around the world. I’m so proud to be able to play any role at all in that. I’d go to jail for that.”

[…]

“Glenn and I have talked all the time about what doing these sto­ries would do to our lives. Since we met, I’ve pushed him and sup­port­ed him,” Miran­da says. He starts count­ing on his fin­gers: “I’ve helped him nego­ti­ate con­tracts; I make sure he gets paid what he deserves — Glenn just wants to work and some­times will do it for cheap.” Miranda’s list con­tin­ues with ascend­ing urgency. “When Glenn pub­lish­es NSA sto­ries in for­eign coun­tries, I help reach out to press so the sto­ries get the most expo­sure. For a while we con­sid­ered start­ing our own web­site to pub­lish the NSA doc­u­ments; when Glenn thought The Guardian was tak­ing too long to pub­lish the first NSA sto­ry, I told him he had to make them know he would go some­where else to pub­lish if they delayed too much.”

For some­one who “doesn’t fol­low every­thing Green­wald does,” he cer­tain­ly seems to fol­low and be active­ly involved in every­thing Green­wald does. In fact, it sounds like Miran­da is Greenwald’s de fac­to man­ag­er.

And one more point; show­ing that Miran­da was ful­ly com­plic­it in the doc­u­ment-smug­gling scheme does noth­ing to refute the state­ment that he was a “mule.” In fact, it ful­ly con­firms that this was his role in the illic­it oper­a­tion.

As for the asser­tion that there’s no “safer way to trans­port sen­si­tive doc­u­ments across the globe,” well, that’s just a fool­ish state­ment. There are many ways to secure­ly trans­fer encrypt­ed files across the Inter­net that are much safer than send­ing Glenn Greenwald’s part­ner on a round-the-world excur­sion with thou­sands of stolen clas­si­fied doc­u­ments.

11. As a result of Snow­den’s “op,” Ger­many has can­celled its Cold-war era sur­veil­lance pact with the U.S./NSA.

“Ger­many Nix­es Sur­veil­lance Pact with US, Britain” by Frank Jor­dans; Asso­ci­ated Press; 8/2/2013.

Ger­many can­celed a Cold War-era sur­veil­lance pact with the Unit­ed States and Britain on Fri­day in response to rev­e­la­tions by Nation­al Secu­rity Agency leak­er Edward Snow­den about those coun­tries’ alleged elec­tronic eaves­drop­ping oper­a­tions.

Chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel had raised the issue of alleged Nation­al Secu­rity Agency spy­ing with Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma when he vis­ited Berlin in June. But with weeks to go before nation­al elec­tions, oppo­si­tion par­ties had demand­ed clar­ity about the extent to which her gov­ern­ment knew of the intel­li­gence gath­er­ing oper­a­tions direct­ed at Ger­many and Ger­man cit­i­zens.

Gov­ern­ment offi­cials have insist­ed that U.S. and British intel­li­gence were nev­er giv­en per­mis­sion to break Germany’s strict pri­vacy laws. But they con­ceded that an agree­ment dat­ing back to the late 1960s gave the U.S., Britain and France the right to request Ger­man author­i­ties to con­duct sur­veil­lance oper­a­tions with­in Ger­many to pro­tect their troops sta­tioned there.

“The can­cel­la­tion of the admin­is­tra­tive agree­ments, which we have pushed for in recent weeks, is a nec­es­sary and prop­er con­se­quence of the recent debate about pro­tect­ing per­sonal pri­vacy,” Germany’s For­eign Min­is­ter Gui­do West­er­welle said in a state­ment. . . .

11. A reveal­ing arti­cle in Der Spiegel notes two VERY impor­tant things: the same Angela Merkel who is “shocked, shocked” at what the NSA is doing has not only put road­blocks in Euro­pean data pri­va­cy rules designed to guard against unwar­rant­ed gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance, but is active­ly seek­ing admit­tance to the “Five Eyes” club, which dates to World War II!

She’s not “shocked, shocked” at all! She wants access to the Five Eyes, which means–DUH–that she APPROVES of this very thing!

What a hyp­ocrite she is! And what a sick spec­ta­cle this whole bloody mess is, with a bunch of nitwits cat­er­waul­ing about “civ­il lib­er­ties,” “human rights,” “the con­sti­tu­tion,” and so forth.

“Appear­ances and Real­ity: Merkel Balks at EU Pri­vacy Push” by Gre­gor Peter Schmitz Der Spiegel10/28/2013.

Chan­cel­lor Merkel has put on a good show of being out­raged by Amer­i­can spy­ing. But, at the same time, she has imped­ed efforts to strength­en data secu­rity. Does she real­ly want more pri­vacy, or is she more inter­ested in being accept­ed into the exclu­sive group of info-shar­ing coun­tries known as the ‘Five Eyes’ club?

One par­tic­u­lar point of clar­i­fi­ca­tion was espe­cially impor­tant to Angela Merkel dur­ing the EU sum­mit in Brus­sels last week. When she com­plained about the NSA’s alleged tap­ping of her cell­phone, the Ger­man chan­cel­lor made clear that her con­cern was not for her­self, but for the “tele­phones of mil­lions of EU cit­i­zens,” whose pri­vacy she said was com­pro­mised by US spy­ing.

Yet at a work­ing din­ner with fel­low EU heads of state on Thurs­day, where the agen­da includ­ed a pro­posed law to bol­ster data pro­tec­tion, Merkel’s fight­ing spir­it on behalf of the EU’s cit­i­zens seemed to have dis­si­pat­ed.

In fact, inter­nal doc­u­ments show that Ger­many applied the brakes when it came to speedy pas­sage of such a reform. Although a num­ber of EU mem­ber states — includ­ing France, Italy and Poland — were push­ing for the cre­ation of a Europe-wide mod­ern data pro­tec­tion frame­work before Euro­pean Par­lia­ment elec­tions take place in May 2014, the issue end­ed up tabled until 2015.

Great Britain, itself sus­pected of spy­ing on its EU part­ners, and Prime Min­is­ter David Cameron, who has for­mer Google CEO Eric Schmidt as one of his advi­sors, put up con­sid­er­able resis­tance. He pushed instead for the final sum­mit state­ment to call sim­ply for “rapid” progress on a sol­id EU data-pro­tec­tion frame­work.

A Set­back for  ‘Europe ‘s Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence ’

Merkel also joined those apply­ing the brakes. Over the week­end, SPIEGEL ONLINE gained access to inter­nal Ger­man For­eign Min­istry doc­u­ments con­cern­ing the EU lead­ers’ final sum­mit state­ment. The “track changes” fea­ture reflects a cru­cial pro­posed change to item No. 8 under the sub­ject head­ing “Dig­i­tal Econ­omy” — the sug­ges­tion that the phrase “adop­tion next year” be replaced with “The nego­ti­a­tions have to be car­ried on inten­sive­ly.”

Ulti­mately, the offi­cial ver­sion of the final sum­mit state­ment sim­ply called for “rapid” progress on the issue — just as Great Britain was hop­ing for.

This amounts to a set­back for pro­po­nents of the pro­posed data-pro­tec­tion law, which EU Jus­tice Com­mis­sioner Viviane Red­ing has called “Europe’s dec­la­ra­tion of inde­pen­dence.”

The Euro­pean Par­lia­ment recent­ly began draft­ing stricter reg­u­la­tions in this area, includ­ing poten­tial fines run­ning into the bil­lions of euros for any Inter­net com­pany caught ille­gally pass­ing pri­vate data to US intel­li­gence agen­cies. Such pro­posed leg­is­la­tion has the sup­port even of some of Merkel’s fel­low con­ser­v­a­tives in the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment, includ­ing Man­fred Weber of the Chris­t­ian Social Union (CSU), the Bavar­ian sis­ter par­ty to Merkel’s Chris­t­ian Demo­c­ra­tic Union (CDU), who says: “We need to final­ly sum­mon the polit­i­cal will for more data pro­tec­tion.”

Amer­i­can tech cor­po­ra­tions could hard­ly believe their luck at hav­ing Merkel’s sup­portNow they’re hop­ing for more lee­way to water down the data-pro­tec­tion law as soon as the furor over the lat­est spy­ing scan­dal has sub­sided. One high-rank­ing Amer­i­can tech-com­pa­ny exec­u­tive told the Finan­cial Times: “When we saw the sto­ry about Merkel’s phone being tapped … we thought we were going to lose.” But, he added: “It looks like we won.” [Yeah, the tech com­pa­nies are “shocked, shocked” too–D.E.]

Indeed, the EU lead­ers’ anger was already start­ing to dis­si­pate dur­ing their ses­sions in Brus­sels. Sum­mit par­tic­i­pants say lead­ers point­ed out that Europe is not exact­ly on the side of the angels when it comes to gov­ern­ment spy­ing. Luxembourg’s prime min­is­ter, Jean-Claude Junck­er, cau­tioned his fel­low lead­ers, ques­tion­ing whether they were cer­tain their own intel­li­gence agen­cies had nev­er vio­lated data pri­vacy them­selves.

Code of Con­duct for Intel­li­gence Agen­cies

The con­cerns of the tech indus­try, in par­tic­u­lar, received an atten­tive ear among Europe’s lead­ers. One sum­mit par­tic­i­pant relates that restruc­tur­ing data-pro­tec­tion laws was por­trayed as a “labo­ri­ous” task that would require more time to com­plete, and that Merkel did not push for speed on the mat­ter, to the sur­prise of some of her coun­ter­parts. [!–D.E.]

Accord­ing to sum­mit par­tic­i­pants, the Ger­man chan­cel­lor seemed far more inter­ested in the “Five Eyes” alliance among the US, the UK, Aus­tralia, New Zealand and Cana­da. The top-lev­el allies with­in this exclu­sive group, which began in 1946 as a pact between Lon­don and Wash­ing­ton, have agreed not to spy on one anoth­er, but instead to share infor­ma­tion and resources. In Brus­sels, Cameron stressed to his fel­low lead­ers how many ter­ror­ist attacks had been pre­vented by suc­cess­ful intel­li­gence work.

Merkel, mean­while, stat­ed: “Unlike David, we are unfor­tu­nately not part of this group.” Accord­ing to the New York Times, Ger­many has sought mem­ber­ship in the “Five Eyes” alliance for years, but has been turned down due to oppo­si­tion, includ­ing from the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion. But this could now change, the paper spec­u­lates.

12. One of the major con­sid­er­a­tions that will be dis­cussed in a future episode of “The Adven­tures of Eddie the Friend­ly Spook” con­cerns L’Af­faire Snow­den as an assault on U.S. inter­net busi­ness. We sug­gest the pos­si­bil­i­ty of U.S. cor­po­ra­tions being, in effect, held hostage.

In the con­text of the Spiegel sto­ry above, we note that Ger­many is far more inter­est­ed in being admit­ted to the “Five Eyes” club than assur­ing data pri­va­cy. Again, we sug­gest that U.S. inter­net firms are being held hostage in this affair.

Oba­ma appears to be over a bar­rel in this regard, hav­ing to chose between secu­ri­ty and the prof­itabil­i­ty and suc­cess of U.S. inter­net busi­ness abroad.

“Oba­ma Weigh­ing Secu­ri­ty and Pri­va­cy in Decid­ing on Spy Pro­gram Lim­its” by David E. Sanger; The New York Times; 12/20/2013; p. A18.

. . . . The pres­sure to rein them in is com­ing from indus­try, which fears that the N.S.A.’s abil­i­ties to crack data encryp­tion and bore into for­eign com­put­er sys­tems and the cloud will scare away busi­ness across Europe and Asia. Mr. Oba­ma must now make a choice: to keep build­ing the world’s most sophis­ti­cat­ed cyber­arse­nal, or pare back for fear of harm­ing Amer­i­can com­pet­i­tive­ness.

13. In and inter­view with USA Today, for­mer NSA chief Michael Hay­den urged the rejec­tion of an advi­so­ry pan­el’s sug­ges­tions con­cern­ing the NSA.

He not­ed that meta­da­ta would be far more secure with NSA than with inter­net and/or telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions com­pa­nies and/or “third par­ties.” (Such stor­age was among the rec­om­men­da­tions of the pan­el.)

Hay­den’s point is very well tak­en. In a future episode of “The Adven­tures of Eddie the Friend­ly Spook,” we will dis­cuss the “pub­lic ver­sus pri­vate” dynam­ic at play here.

Hay­den also notes that the Fourth Amend­ment is not an inter­na­tion­al treaty. It does not, and nev­er has, applied to U.S. cit­i­zens.

“For­mer NSA Chief: Reject Pro­pos­als” by Susan Page; USA Today; 12/31/2013; p. 4A.

In tyhe inter­view with USA Today’s week­ly video news­mak­er series. Hay­den:

  • Said the vast data on Amer­i­cans phone records are “far safer and pri­vay is far more secured with NSA hold­ing the data than some third par­ty.” The com­mis­sion rec­om­mend­ed that the phone com­pa­nies or a third par­ty take over stor­ing the data.” . . . .
  • . . . . Ridiculed a pro­pos­al to increase pro­tec­tions for per­son­al data about non-cit­i­zens abroad. “The Fourth Amend­ment to our Con­sti­tu­tion is not an inter­na­tion­al treaty,” he said. For those who aren’t cov­ered by its pro­tec­tions, he said, “if your com­mu­ni­ca­tions con­tain infor­ma­tion that make Amer­i­cans more safe and more free, game on.”

14. The head of the Nation­al Alliance and author of Turn­er Diaries–William Luther Pierce–appears to have had fore­knowl­edge of the 9/11 attacks. The Nation­al Alliance was among the Nazi groups rep­re­sent­ed by Glenn Green­wald when he was an attor­ney.

In The Turn­er Diaries, the Nazi group The Order takes over the Unit­ed States after wag­ing a race war and per­pe­trat­ing a series of ter­ror­ist acts using WMDs.

In Ser­pen­t’s Walk, also writ­ten and pub­lished by The Nation­al Alliance (again, one of Cit­i­zen Green­wald’s Nazi clients), the U.S. is tak­en over by the Under­ground Reich after being dev­as­tat­ed by a series of ter­ror­ist inci­dents using WMD’s.

Before that could hap­pen, the NSA would have to be neu­tral­ized. Think about it!

“Neo-Nazis and 9/11” by Jack McCarthy; Coun­ter­punch; 10/29/2001.

. . . . Upon perus­ing his speech­es from 1998–99, I dis­cov­ered that Pierce, who heads the so-called ‘Nation­al Alliance,’ did indeed utter some most inter­est­ing (pre‑9/11—if not prophetic—remarks about Osama bin Laden and bio-ter­ror­ism. The run­ning theme in Pierce’s com­men­taries is—to para­phrase his hero Hitler—that Osama Bin Laden’s warn­ing to Amer­i­ca is ‘I Am Com­ing.’ And so is bio-ter­ror­ism.

In one chill­ing com­men­tary Pierce, (after not­ing that Bin Laden and the rest of the lost gen­er­a­tion of angry Moslem youth had it with their par­ents’ com­pro­mis­es and were hell bent on revenge against infi­del Amer­i­ca) issued this stark, prophet­ic warn­ing in a 1998 radio address titled, ‘Stay Out of Tall Build­ings.’ ‘New York­ers who work in tall office build­ings any­thing close to the size of the World Trade Cen­ter might con­sid­er wear­ing hard hats . . .’ Pierce warned. . . . [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s]. . . .

15. The cli­mac­tic episode of The Turn­er Diaries is a low-lev­el, sui­cide aer­ial attack on the Pen­ta­gon which occurs on the Ger­man “Day of Destiny”–November 9th. A Ger­man would write that date as–9/11!

The Turn­er Diaries; “Andrew Mac­don­ald;” Bar­ri­cade Books, Inc. [SC] 1996; Copy­right 1978, 1980 William Pierce; ISBN 1–56980–086–3; p. 201.

. . . I con­ferred pri­vately with Major Williams of the Wash­ing­ton Field Com­mand for more than an hour on the prob­lem of attack­ing the Pen­ta­gon. The military’s oth­er major com­mand cen­ters were either knocked out on Sep­tem­ber 8 or sub­se­quently con­sol­i­dated with the Pen­ta­gon, which the top brass appar­ently regards as impreg­nable. And it damned near is. We went over every pos­si­bil­ity we could think of, and we came up with no real­ly con­vinc­ing plan—except, per­haps one. That is to make an air deliv­ery of a bomb.

In the mas­sive ring of defens­es around the Pen­ta­gon there is a great deal of anti-air­craft fire­power, but we decid­ed that a small plane, fly­ing just above the ground, might be able to get through the three-mile gaunt­let with one of our 60-kilo­ton war­heads. One fac­tor in favor of such an attempt is that we have nev­er before used air­craft in such a way, and we might hope to catch the anti-air­craft crews off their guard.

Although the mil­i­tary is guard­ing all civ­il air­fields, it just hap­pens that we have an old crop duster stashed in a barn only a few miles from here. My imme­di­ate assign­ment is to pre­pare a detailed plan for an aer­ial attack on the Pen­ta­gon by next Mon­day. We must make a final deci­sion at the time and then act with­out fur­ther delay.

Novem­ber 9, 1993. It’s still three hours until first light, and all sys­tems are ‘go.’ I’ll use the time to write a few pages—my last diary entry. Then it’s a one-way trip to the Pen­ta­gon for me. The war­head is strapped into the front seat of the old Stear­man and rigged to det­o­nate either on impact or when I flip a switch in the back seat. Hope­fully, I’ll be able to mange a low-lev­el air burst direct­ly over the cen­ter of the Pen­ta­gon. Fail­ing that, I’ll at least try to fly as close as I can before I’m shot down.

Thus end Earl Turner’s diaries, as unpre­ten­tiously as they began. His final mis­sion was suc­cess­ful, of course, as we all are remind­ed each year on Novem­ber 9—our tra­di­tional Day of the Mar­tyrs. . .

16. UPDATE: Angela Merkel has pro­posed an EU-wide com­mu­ni­ca­tions sys­tem to guard against NSA and GCHQ spy­ing, while ramp­ing up spy­ing against the U.S.

“Sur­veil­lance Rev­e­la­tions: Angela Merkel Pro­poses Euro­pean Net­work to Beat NSA and GCHQ Spy­ing” by Tony Pat­ter­son; The Inde­pen­dent [UK]; 2/16/2014.

Chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel of Ger­many has announced plans to set up a Euro­pean com­mu­ni­ca­tions net­work as part of a broad counter-espi­onage offen­sive designed to curb mass sur­veil­lance con­ducted by the US Nation­al Secu­rity Agency and its British coun­ter­part, GCHQ. . . .

. . . . Announc­ing the project in her week­ly pod­cast, Ms Merkel said she envis­aged set­ting up a Euro­pean com­mu­ni­ca­tions net­work which would offer pro­tec­tion from NSA sur­veil­lance by side-step­ping the cur­rent arrange­ment where­by emails and oth­er inter­net data auto­mat­i­cally pass through the Unit­ed States.

The NSA’s Ger­man phone and inter­net sur­veil­lance oper­a­tion is report­ed to be one of the biggest in the EU. In co-oper­a­tion with GCHQ it has direct access to under­sea cables car­ry­ing transat­lantic com­mu­ni­ca­tions between Europe and the US.

Ms Merkel said she planned to dis­cuss the project with the French Pres­i­dent, François Hol­lande, when she meets him in Paris on Wednes­day. “Above all we’ll talk about Euro­pean providers that offer secu­rity to our cit­i­zens, so that one shouldn’t have to send emails and oth­er infor­ma­tion across the Atlantic,” she said. “Rather one could build up a com­mu­ni­ca­tions net­work inside Europe.”

French gov­ern­ment offi­cials respond­ed by say­ing Paris intend­ed to “take up” the Ger­man ini­tia­tive.

Ms Merkel’s pro­pos­als appear to be part of a wider Ger­man counter-espi­onage offen­sive, report­ed to be under way in sev­eral of Germany’s intel­li­gence agen­cies, against NSA and GCHQ sur­veil­lance.

Der Spiegel mag­a­zine said on Sun­day that it had obtained infor­ma­tion about plans by Germany’s main domes­tic intel­li­gence agency, the Fed­eral Office for the Pro­tec­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion, for a “mas­sive” increase in counter-espi­onage mea­sures.

The mag­a­zine said there were plans to sub­ject both the Amer­i­can and British Embassies in Berlin to sur­veil­lance. It said the mea­sures would include obtain­ing exact details about intel­li­gence agents who were accred­ited as diplo­mats, and infor­ma­tion about the tech­nol­ogy being used with­in the embassies. . . .

Discussion

Comments are disallowed for this post.

Comments are closed.