Transfer of Files on Psychological Operations

[Ed Jewett]

Think-Tanks and the Reporters Who Heart Them

• By Nathan Hodge
  
• December 18, 2009 |
  
• 11:54 am |
  
• Categories: Paper Pushers, Beltway Bandits, Politicians
  

The relationship between reporters and think tanks used to be, well, pretty simple. You called up defense expert X for a quote on, say, cost overruns on a stealth fighter jet, and if you were lucky, you’d get something lively. (Free tip to aspiring defense wonks: Try more pop-culture references.) You could attend one of their conferences, listen to one of their panels and perhaps pick up half a sandwich.
Now it’s nearly 2010: Print is dying, newsrooms are shrinking and the media industry is generally in the toilet. The relationship between reporters and think-tanks, at least in the national-security arena, is starting to shift. Think tanks are starting to become full-time patrons of the news business, and they are bankrolling book projects, blogs and even war reporting.
The Center for a New American Security, for instance, has funded a string of first-rate defense reporters through its Writers in Residence Program. The latest launch: The Fourth Star, by Washington Post reporter Greg Jaffe and former New York Times reporter David Cloud. CNAS also signed up New York Times reporters Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt to work on a joint book project, titled Counterstrike. Longtime Post reporter Tom Ricks, who published The Gamble this year, is a senior fellow at CNAS. (Ricks worked on Fiasco, his previous bestseller, while in residence at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.)
CNAS isn’t the only refuge for national-security reporters these days. New York Times military correspondent Michael Gordon, co-author of Cobra II, is listed as a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War. James Mann, author of The Rise of the Vulcans and a bunch of other noteworthy books, was senior writer-in-residence the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Think tanks have hired some excellent in-house military affairs bloggers. And for-profit publications are pairing up with the non-profits on projects like Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, billed as a partnership with the New America Foundation.
It makes economic sense. Tightfisted newspaper publishers aren’t too generous with book leave these days; management keeps cutting bureaus and scaling back travel budgets; and who wouldn’t jump at a writer-in-residence gig, especially when the bean-counters are pressuring reporters to take buyouts?

But what does this mean for journalism? When think tanks are often a revolving door for government service, what happens when reporters who become office-mates of past or future political appointees? How do you keep national security reporting from becoming an echo chamber of the Beltway policy elite? It’s hard enough giving objective analysis of some policy maven’s ideas, after you two have shared a few cocktails together. Now imagine how much tougher that becomes, when the policy maven is in the next cubicle over. Awkwaaaard!
In my earlier posts on the defense-intellectual complex, some bloggers seized on the topic to suggest that think tanks were somehow in the pocket of the defense industry. I disagreed: I think the industry’s support to think tanks is usually a hedge, like advertising and lobbying, not some insidious cash-for-opinions scheme. But I do worry about the susceptibility to groupthink. Defense trends come and go — anyone remember network-centric warfare? — and these policy shops are in the business of selling them. I’d hate to see skeptical, public-spirited reporters be accused of fronting for some policy agenda. (Disclosure: Back in the mid-’90s, long before my current incarnation as a journalist/blogger, I worked at the Hudson Institute as a book researcher for retired Lt. Gen. William Odom. I didn’t do any policy work.)
But I would also hate to see a situation where national-security reporting starts to mimic the tone or the style of think-tank policy papers. Dull and worthy may work for white papers, but it ain’t gonna save print. But then again, maybe what those papers needs is an injection of real writers’ mojo.
At the end of the day, someone has to pay for good, in-depth reporting, and think tanks are starting to look like a more reliable place to get funding. In an excellent New Yorker essay, Steve Coll, a former Washington Post reporter, lamented the death of the traditional model of investigative journalism that was sustained for so many decades by for-profit newspapers.
“There is just no substitute for the professional, civil-service-style, relentless independent thinking, reporting, and observation that developed in big newsrooms between the Second World War and whenever it was that the end began—about 2005 or so,” he wrote.
Coll, incidentally, is also president of the New America Foundation.
[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]



Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/...z12eUDwETK

[Ed Jewett]

Special Ops robots now do psychological warfare

Attention rebel meatsacks: Resistance is futile!


By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Physics, 18th December 2009 16:05 GMT

US arms globocorp Boeing has announced yet another military robot demonstration - but this time, one with a difference. Rather than spying on meatsacks or mowing them down with the traditional array of automated weaponry, the war-bots in this trial sought to win over their fleshy opponents using psychological warfare.

The demo was carried out for the US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), the organisation which runs the noted Green Berets, Rangers etc.

"Working with USASOC, we were able to pull together a team to demonstrate this integrated, multimodal operation in just 45 days," says Boeing bigwig Vic Sweberg. "We brought together hardware and software from five different contractors into a single system that allowed the control of different unmanned systems capabilities to accomplish a particular mission."

Apart from its legions of hardy throatcutters, USASOC is also in charge of the US Army's active psychological-warfare troops.

It seems that a small robot helicopter and an unmanned R-Gator jeep/buggy affair from John Deere were selected to deliver a blistering onslaught of pro-US propaganda. Boeing says the two machine warriors carried out an "electro-optical/infrared, audio, and leaflet drop mission".

Translated, that means that infrared nightsight video of the target area was taken, propaganda announcements were played through speakers (probably on the R-Gator) and leaflets were dropped (probably from the copter).

Actually, robots of a sort have already carried out leaflet drops in Afghanistan - SnowGoose robo-paramotor rigs, to be specific. So there's nothing terribly new going on here.

Even so, it does seem odd that robots - having learned how to slaughter human beings using deadly force - have now moved on to the more tricky task of persuading people to comply with orders or give up simply by spreading information.

Come the machine uprising, this sort of capability will no doubt be very useful in recruiting and managing fleshy slaves. ®


Related stories

* US Spec Ops operates psywar websites targeted at UK (16 September 2009)
* Revealed: Full specs on secret US covert-ops home cinema (29 May 2009)
* US spec-ops get robot whispercopter kill fleet this month (11 November 2008)
* US runs warzone man-tracking 'Manhattan Project' (15 September 2008)
* US.mil launches Operation Desert Spam (13 January 2003)


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/18/mi...y_robot_psyops/ via
Wired/Danger Room

[Ed Jewett]

Pentagon calls for ‘Office of Strategic Deception’

By Sahil Kapur
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 -- 9:47 am

WASHINGTON -- Remember the Pentagon Office of Special Plans that helped collect dubious intelligence that led to the war in Iraq? Or the program where the Pentagon secretly briefed military analysts to promote the Iraq war?

Meet the would-be Office of Strategic Deception.

In a little-noticed report earlier this month, the Defense Department's powerful Defense Science Board recommended creation of an entity designed solely for "strategic deception" against US adversaries.

"Specifically," the report reads (pdf), "we recommend that the Secretary [of Defense] task both the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy and Intelligence, and the Joint Staff, working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to create a tiger team to lay out courses of action and a way ahead for establishing a standing strategic surprise/deception entity. Once the initial work has been completed, all parts of the interagency should be brought into this effort."

"Strategic deception has in the past provided the United States with significant advantages that translated into operational and tactical success," it continues. "Successful deception also minimizes U.S. vulnerabilities, while simultaneously setting conditions to surprise adversaries."
Story continues below...

Deception is a common war-time tactic nations use to gain a leg up on their enemies, but as Wired notes, the Pentagon apparently believes the United States must begin engaging in strategic tricks even before it wages war against another country.

"Deception cannot succeed in wartime without developing theory and doctrine in peacetime," the DSB report reads. "In order to mitigate or impart surprise, the United States should [initiate] deception planning and action prior to the need for military operations."

And such attempts at strategic trickery must occur at virtually every stage in the United States' dealings with other nations, the Pentagon's science board says.

"Denial and deception efforts will be included from the onset, factors into both intelligence and response research and development activities at every stage, including war gaming."

The DSB report was first flagged by InsideDefense.com.

In 2003, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh highlighted the Office of Special Plans, a closely guarded cabal that did an end-run around the Pentagon to collect purported intelligence suggesting that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction.

"They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans," Hersh wrote. "In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi.

"According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States," Hersh added.

Late last year, Raw Story's Brad Jacobson revealed evidence that directly tied the activities undertaken in the military analyst program under President George W. Bush -- where analysts were briefed to promote the Iraq war -- to an official US military document’s definition of psychological operations. Such propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, who remains a spokesman for the Pentagon today, told Raw Story the program was intended only to "inform."

Whitman said he stood by an earlier statement in which he averred “the intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American public.”

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/pentagon-repor...ception-entity/

[Ed Jewett]

Pentagon Report Calls for Office of ‘Strategic Deception’

• By Noah Shachtman
  
• January 26, 2010 |
  
• 12:54 pm |
  
• Categories: Spies, Secrecy and Surveillance
  

The Defense Department needs to get better at lying and fooling people about its intentions. That’s the conclusion from an influential Pentagon panel, the Defense Science Board (DSB), which recommends that the military and intelligence communities join in a new agency devoted to “strategic surprise/deception.”
Tricking battlefield opponents has been a part of war since guys started beating each other with bones and sticks. But these days, such moves are harder to pull off, the DSB notes in a January report (.pdf) first unearthed byInsideDefense.com. “In an era of ubiquitous information access, anonymous leaks and public demands for transparency, deception operations are extraordinarily difficult. Nevertheless, successful strategic deception has in the past provided the United States with significant advantages that translated into operational and tactical success. Successful deception also minimizes U.S. vulnerabilities, while simultaneously setting conditions to surprise adversaries.”
The U.S. can’t wait until it’s at war with a particular country or group before engaging in this strategic trickery, however. “Deception cannot succeed in wartime without developing theory and doctrine in peacetime,” according to the DSB. “In order to mitigate or impart surprise, the United States should [begin] deception planning and action prior to the need for military operations.”
Doing that will not only requires an “understanding the enemy culture, standing beliefs, and intelligence-gathering process and decision cycle, as well as the soundness of its operational and tactical doctrine,” the DSB adds. Deception is also “reliant … on the close control of information, running agents (and double-agents) and creating stories that adversaries will readily believe.”
Such wholesale obfuscation can’t be done on an ad-hoc basis, or by a loose coalition of existing agencies. The DSB writes that ”to be effective, a permanent standing office with strong professional intelligence and operational expertise needs to be established.” I wonder: what would you call that organization? The Military Deception Agency? Or something a bit more … deceptive?
Photo: Matthileo/Flickr



Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/...z12eVKIhVZ

[Ed Jewett]

Revealed: Retired CIA agent ‘made up’ waterboarding details

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 -- 10:14 pm


As it turns out, retired CIA agent John Kiriakou has an active imagination, basically.

According to a piece by veteran intelligence reporter Jeff Stein, Kiriakou "basically made up" details about the waterboarding of al Qaeda agent Abu Zubaydah.

Arguing that waterboarding — or simulated drowning — is actually effective in forcing prisoners to share secret information, Kiriakou told ABC News’ Nightline in April, “The next day [after his first time being waterboarded], he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.”

“From that day on, he answered every question,” he said, according to ABC. “The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

"Now comes John Kiriakou, again, with a wholly different story," Stein noted in Foreign Policy. "On the next-to-last page of a new memoir, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror (written with Michael Ruby), Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up."

"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time," Kiriakou reportedly said.

"But after his one-paragraph confession, Kiriakou adds that he didn't have any first hand knowledge of anything relating to CIA torture routines, and still doesn't," Stein continued. "And he claims that the disinformation he helped spread was a CIA dirty trick: "In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own."

Kiriakou had insisted repeatedly to ABC News that waterboarding, while "torture," supposedly "saved lives," even though he had no way of knowing that.

The CIA has since destroyed all videotapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations. He was allegedly subjected to waterboarding at least 83 times.


http://rawstory.com/2010/01/revealed-excia...arding-details/

[Ed Jewett]

PR Exec Tells How Industry Manipulates Public Opinion

* corporations
* global warming
* public relations

Source: Allianz, January 22, 2010

James Hoggan, the director of the James Hoggan & Associates public relations firm, has authored a book titled Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, in which he describes PR techniques that industry groups use to create the impression of a scientific controversy about climate change. Industries set up front groups, Hoggan says, like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which tried to convince Americans in electoral swing states that coal is clean. Front groups like Americans for Prosperity, which organized the disruptive August, 2009 town hall meeting protests, started out by paying for protesters. Hoggan reports seeing documents that show PR firms charged $1800 per protester. "Companies can buy protesters, and if you are clever with your framing of the issue, these paid protesters attract real protesters," Hoggan explains. His book also reveals the strategy of framing global warming as a United Nations scheme, or a scam by international scientists, to appeal to people who "don't like being told what to do by the UN or some foreigners." The most powerful tools used to manipulate public opinion, Hoggan says, are focus groups, which help PR companies understand how people think on certain issues. Another is the creation of "echo chambers," that involve generating favorable news reports that are repeated over and over by media outlets until the public finally starts repeating it back. "Get Dick Cheney and George Bush and Fox News and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to talk and then just keep repeating what they say -- 'the science is not settled, the science is not settled, the science is not settled' -- until the public starts repeating it back. It’s a frightening phenomenon," Hogan says.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8852

####

Johann Hari on Propaganda and James Hansen's New Book--Both Worth Reading!

* global warming

Source: Salon, January 25, 2010

by Lisa Graves

Check out Johann Hari's review of James Hansen's terrific new book, "Storms of My Grandchildren." Both describe the Bush Administration's efforts to distort public opinion about global warming and climate change through hiring flacks and hacks from coal to suppress science and truth. You've read the dry versions of the story in news clips, but the book itself is so thoughtfully and powerfully written, it's definitely worth picking it up at your local bookstore.

Hari's take is insightful and crisp: "[N]otoriously, the second Bush administration started to appoint former employees of Big Coal to run NASA's communications. They blocked press releases warning about global warming and tried to stop Hansen from giving interviews. One of the appointees explained his job was to "make the President look good." When Hansen argued back, they cut his research budget by 20 percent. Hansen said he had a duty to speak out because the first line of NASA's mission statement is a pledge "to understand and protect our home planet"—so the Bush appointees deleted the commitment. Yes: They erased the commitment to protect planet Earth. (An independent investigation by the Inspector General later confirmed all this.) Most scientists would have backed down or given up. Hansen didn't—and from his prickly prose, you can tell why."

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8850

[Ed Jewett]

Government Propagandists in Corporate Media

When independent journalists challenge US wars, government propagandists attack in the comments

By Carl Herman

February 04, 2010

"LA County Nonpartisan Examiner" Feb. 03, 2010 --

The US Senate Church Committee disclosed in 1975 that more than over 400 government propagandists had infiltrated American corporate media to manipulate public opinion on key policies, including war. CIA Director William Colby testified that Operation Mockingbird had been operational since the late 1940s to control what was reported through American television, newspapers, and magazines. President Ford fired Colby after his testimony and replaced him with George H. W. Bush. Bush Sr. ended the CIA’s testimony, stating that there were no other programs of concern to disclose and promised that the CIA would no longer influence the media (for Bush Sr.’s lies to initiate the first war with Iraq, click here).

We know in the present that government propagandists appeared over 4,500 times as “experts” in the PR run-up to the current war in Iraq, corporate media refuses to clearly communicate the essential news that ALL the claims for war were known to be false at the time they were told and US wars are “emperor has no clothes” obviously unlawful. The American public is recognizing the propaganda in corporate media by deserting them to embrace alternative sources.

Therefore, since we know that government-sponsored Operation Mockingbird propaganda is active today, and we know that people are abandoning corporate propaganda sources in favor of articles such as this one, put yourself in the shoes of Operation Mockingbird management and imagine your strategic responses to this type of article.

Well?

I imagine the first responses include paying propagandists to raid and pollute the comments sections with a full variety of their rhetorical fallacies. While I have no easy way to prove this is happening, I’d like to share with you a thread with one of the more sophisticated detractors from the factual topics of the article.

This is from my article: All 27 UK Foreign Affairs lawyers: Iraq war unlawful. Obama, politicians, US media: no response. Let's consider professional propagandist strategy. The article discloses stunning testimony that all the international law lawyers in the UK understood the Iraq war as unlawful.

To shill for continued war, propagandists would have to deflect this news by distraction or undermine the news' significance. One tactic is to obfuscate the meaning of the UN Charter law to prevent law; to essentially communicate that a law against war cannot actually stop a war because it's so vague to shift easily under interpretation. Another tactic is to argue that law has no meaning; that laws are not laws. Both Orwellian tactics are evident below. I invite you to see them for what they are: criminal complicity for unlawful war that has killed over a million, caused horrible suffering for multiples more, and done under our flag with trillions of our long-term tax dollars.

The comments are in order from first to last, and follow my “Comment policy” that is reprinted below that explicitly addresses the possibility of propaganda infiltration in the comments to discourage intelligent discussion of the facts.

I hope the following dialogue is helpful to improve your sophistication to recognize and crush propaganda.


Comments

wow says:
"The owners of the major news stations are defense contractors who have a conflict of interest when it comes to war."

Really?
Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC), Rupert Murdoch (Fox), TimeWarner (CNN) are all big defense contractors? That would be news to their stockholders.

Only place that accusation has any merit is GE/NBC - and GE is about to sell off NBC.
February 1, 11:51 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
Attacking comments because you have nothing to say about the article’s topic (as usual)? Welcome back to my policy: either make your comments pertinent to the article topic or I’ll delete your comments.

You lie by omission by ignoring Operation Mockingbird whereby the Church Senate Committee disclosed the Department of Defense was in collusion with corporate media to propagandize for war. So yes, corporate media and War Department (removing the disinformation title of Defense) are conflicted in their interests. They will not report this story and hammer it to make clear that the war in Iraq is obviously unlawful.

If you want your voice heard, defend 1441 as a justification for war as legitimate criticism to the article’s topic, or justify why corporate media shouldn’t report to the American public the information in this article, or justify our duopolistic political silence. Why don’t the corporations you list demand Obama and Republican leadership’s response to this news?
February 1, 12:04 PM

wow says:
Get out of the '60s, Herman - the media world is a significantly different environment than what Church dug into.

Did the major media organizations stump for war in Iraq? Pretty much, yes, with notable exceptions like Knight Ridder's national bureau.

But was it because they were owned by defense contractors? No.

First, as I pointed out, most are not owned by defense contractors. Second, they jumped on a national bandwagon and ratings chase, especially the TV folks who were seduced by the prospect of embedded live TV crews.

They also were neatly suckered by the Rumsfeld's retired expert analysts, one of the more effective Pentagon PR (propaganda) campaigns in decades.

But dismissing it all as 'defense contractor ownership" completely misses the real problem.
February 1, 12:36 PM

wow says:
As for the meat of YOUR article, allow be to address an area in which I have some expertise: Your claime that "Concentrated US corporate media will not report the Chilcot inquiry “emperor has no clothes” facts and conclusion that the current US wars are unlawful."

Even a quick search of US news sources finds extensive coverage of Blair's testimony and British reactions by ABC, CNN, NPR, PBS, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and even the Voice of America.

So your claim is not supported by facts.
February 1, 12:39 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
I’m in 2010 pointing out concentrated corporate domination of “news.” Readers should read the link in "Comments policy" to confirm the Pentagon propagandists you point to as “effective” rather than shills for unlawful wars who should have chosen their oath of enlistment to defend the US Constitution rather than Wars of Aggression. Ratings chase? You throw away history confirmed in 1975 with ongoing evidence of continuance of a designed propaganda program through corporate media.

You fail, as usual, to address the topic: all 27 UK Foreign Office lawyers agree for the simple reasons I show in the article that the war in Iraq is an unlawful War of Aggression. In this case, you intentionally try to confuse corporate propaganda of vaguely reporting “an inquiry” with real reporting of US/UK criminal wars. Conflicted-in-interest corporate media obfuscate rather than explain what the UN Charter demands for lawful war and the obviously false claim that 1441 is legal justification.
February 1, 1:01 PM

wow says:
"conflicted-in-interest"???

Try "clueless and confused."

What you see as conspiracy (and ignore 35 years of history), those who have any knowledge of the American media recognize as a really bad combination of ineptness, ignorance, and tunnel vision compounded by pressures to 'feed the beast' and 'get the scoop.'

Broadcast media have problems seeing beyond the next 'top of the hour;' print media is focused on slowing the red ink.

And most media pros know that they are doing a crappy job these days - but can't figure out how to fix it.

But when you begin your criticisms by accusing them of blatant evil intent, without a clue as to what their real problems are, don't expect them to beat a path to your door with false 'mea culpas.'

On the other hand, if they were half as controlled as you claim, they already would have destroyed you publicly.

On the other point, don't confuse characterization of "effective" as an expression of approval.
February 1, 1:27 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
What you lie about as “clueless” is Operation Mockingbird and the other disclosures from the link in the Comment policy section above. Why don’t you acknowledge this history, wow? You lie that professional journalists who wanted a “scoop” wouldn’t just headline: “Iraq War unlawful; new Nuremberg Trials?”

The laws of the UN Charter are so easy to understand, the “excuse” of 1441 so tragic-comic, this is propaganda for everyone to see, and you, wow, are in the serious position of determining what your life’s expression is going to advocate: paper-thin propaganda for mass-murder or a better-late-than-never “Scrooge conversion.”

“Approval”??? nobody cares about your opinion, wow. The topic of this article is the war is unlawful. Show us you’re not a propagandist, wow: either state the obvious that the Iraq war is unlawful, orders pertaining to it must be refused, and government must arrest then prosecute (or Truth and Reconciliation), OR explain how it's lawful.

Well...??
February 1, 4:10 PM

wow says:
Herman, you slander me - I did acknowledge the history, but unlike you I also recognize things change over time: "...the media world is a significantly different environment than what Church dug into."

I also pointed out Rumsfeld's program of getting retired generals on air to promote his views. Of course, you ignore that it was that same "corporate media" that exposed the propaganda program.

As for the "laws" of the UN Charter, they have been repeatedly demonstrated as unenforceable - by your definition of "war of aggression," every one of the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the nations with veto power) have been in violation at one time or another. There's no one to Watch the Watchers.

Deal with reality: The US Government through self-deception got itself into a stupid, unnecessary war in Iraq and now has to find the best way out of the situation. It seems, finally, to be moving in that direction.
February 2, 6:36 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
You confirm Operation Mockingbird and the Pentagon’s allowed disinformation for the Iraq war lies. You then can’t explain why corporate media don’t headline, “Iraq War unlawful” while trying to make today’s corporate media sound different from propaganda control. Because Americans used to believe in a free press, effective propaganda must include minor revelation of truth to give the appearance of freedom. Corporate media ratings’ are plummeting and they don’t expose the huge story of unlawful war that would propel them to media leadership. Hmm, is that because they’re the propaganda arm for this unlawful war? Nah, wow must be right that this time they’re not lying, just ineffective!

You lie that laws are unenforceable. They can be, and are not. More…
February 2, 8:55 AM
Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: And you admit this current war is in violation of law! So it follows that all US government and military must immediately refuse orders, arrest those who issue them, and prosecute, right? That would cause the Watchers unlawful war to stop right now. But no, wow, you in your fascist world view slide right back to supporting a War of Aggression. And when the facts are clear that this war is in complete violation of law, you call it “self-deception” and pat the murderers on the back for now “moving in the best way out of the situation.”

If you were in any position of authority with your propaganda, you would be in danger of arrest for conspiracy for Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against Peace, and treason.

We’ll see if people like me who advocate Truth and Reconciliation are the stronger voice than those who prefer full prosecution, If you were such an official propagandist, wow, I’d consider my “Scrooge conversion” invitation seriously.
February 2, 8:54 AM

wow says:
Where did I "admit this current war is in violation of law"? I said it was stupid and unnecessary.

As for the media not trumpeting your "unlawful war" claims, how about because in general they don't believe your legal logic?

The Iraq operation was authorized by Congress; for most Americans, including most journalists, that AT MOST means the US Government has rejected the positions of other members of the UN. For many, it simply means the USA remains a sovereign nation.

Since then, there has been a lot of reporting about the inaccurate claims of WMDs, links to al Qaeda, and assorted other justifications for invading Iraq - in general, questioning why. You refuse to acknowledge that.

We all realize that you believe anyone who disagrees with you in any way must therefore be a fascist propagandist - but in the real world, it is possible to disagree about legal interpretations. (See numerous 5-4 Supreme Court decisions for example.)
February 2, 9:48 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were admitting the UN Security Council permanent members in violation; I misread you.

Congress authorized discretionary use of force, but limited by the UN Charter, you liar. All reasons for going to war with Iraq are now known as lies AS THEY WERE TOLD, you liar. You try to confuse obfuscating corporate reporting with this clear fact. Interested readers can read the documentation at “Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence”. More…
February 2, 10:15 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: Ok wow: explain how UNSC Resolution 1441 justifies war. Do so now, or yes, I’ll stand with my propagandist assumption of your identity. The war in Iraq is as legal as if during the Super Bowl, a defensive lineman grabbed the ball while the offense was in their huddle, passed it to the free safety at the sidelines who then ran into the endzone. Because Americans know football rules and not the UN Charter, Americans could never be fooled by a propagandist announcer and “referees” that what occurred was a touchdown. We would know the game was rigged and what happened on the field was not even close to legal.

But regarding the mostly-unknown rules for lawful and unlawful war of the UN Charter, Americans’ faith in good government and honest media has been insidiously turned against them to manipulate their payment of taxes and enlistment to fight in wars that are as close to legal as our football example. More…
February 2, 10:15 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: The UN Charter has been a public document for 65 years, is written in simple language, and was designed in letter and spirit to be crystal-clear in its provisions to forever end war as a foreign policy option. This fact, like a rule in football, is open to anyone’s verification. As in football when people have just a little experience in understanding the rule, egregious violations become impossible to commit without being caught. However, a well-designed law or rule is worthless if it’s not widely known, not honored, and not enforced.

Leges Sine Moribus Vanae
Laws without morals are in vane. – Horace, Book III, ode 24

Finally, wow: explain how UNSC Resolution 1441 justifies war. Do so now, or yes, I’ll stand with my propagandist assumption of your identity and delete your further comments as distracting from the main topic of this article: lawful or unlawful war in Iraq.
February 2, 10:15 AM

wow says:
I don't have to explain 1441; I haven't claimed it justified invading Iraq.

For that matter, you slanderous child of unmarried parents, I've never claimed invading Iraq was justified, period - something you repeatedly ignore in your lies and misrepresentations.

I'll state one final time: Any law that cannot be enforced is meaningless.

And nothing in the UN Charter is enforceable if any one of the Five Permanent Members exercises its veto. History has clearly demonstrated that the UN prohibition against war is toothless.

Now, demonstrate some intellectual honesty, integrity and courage and let this stand.

Or prove once again that you are a paranoid and delusional coward who cannot face anyone questioning your "expertise."
February 2, 10:45 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
Then you have no legal justification for war, as war is unlawful unless authorized by the UNSC or a narrow definition of self-defense until the UNSC rules. You throw away the victory of WW2 that my father, uncle and father-in-law fought, the unfulfilled promise of WW1 as a “war to end all wars” that both my grandfathers fought, and stand with following the dictates of an American leader (Fuhrer) because you insultingly whine “law CANNOT be enforced.” This, after insinuating in your last comment its possible to interpret the war is legal and then withdraw from supporting that ridiculous propaganda that is the topic of this article. More…
February 2, 11:22 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: The UN Charter isn’t enforced because of people like you, wow, who refuse to demand its structure be honored. The US Constitution isn’t being enforced in many areas because of people like you, wow, who refuse to demand its structure be honored. Unalienable rights are the foundation of this country wow; they arose from the declaration of human beings for their recognition and are enforced or not at human beings’ will, not from their whines it cannot be done.

You refuse to acknowledge the Iraq war is as unlawful as my football analogy. Instead you argue that the world’s law to end the scourge of war is “meaningless.” You stand against the US Constitution and the US-initiated treaty of the UN Charter’s elimination of war as a foreign policy option. And then you call those of us standing for these American values against tyrants and propagandists as bastards, paranoid, delusional, and a coward unable to face these questions.

Good luck with that future of yours, wow.
February 2, 11:22 AM

wow says:
Of course "its (sic) possible to interpret the war is legal..." - that's exactly what the Bush and Blair administrations DID.

As a "professional educator," surely you can grasp the difference between advocating a position and describing one held by others.

I see political leaders who were already committed to a policy interpreting evidence in such a way as to support their positions, rather than basing positions on the evidence. So do most who study the run-up to war.

But you not only refuse to even consider whether that has merit, you immediately launch the very ad hominum attacks you claim to condemn.

The "legality" of the war in Iraq is a nice armchair debate - but those of us who are really interested in the welfare of this nation are more concerned with cleaning up the mess instead of pontificating. As would be your veteran ancestors, I suspect.

As for the insults, they were clearly directed solely at you; because, again, you lie about me.
February 2, 1:29 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
Bush and Blair SAID they had a legal interpretation, which is very different from actually having one in the Orwellian extreme of the war in Iraq and our football analogy. You SAY you see interpretations favorable to policy preferences, rather than Orwellian lies and refuse to state the legal argument as its placement in writing reveals that it’s as close to legal as our football example.

I trust the readers to discern between a mass-murderous War of Aggression and your BS to obfuscate the simple legal question. I trust readers to choose when the choice is clear between the US Constitution and illegality of war versus your fascist bandwagon of what you allege “most who study” do in emulation of your complete failure to even speak for the rule of US law in its most important life-and-death application of war. more…
February 2, 1:57 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: No, wow: you really are un-American to reject rule under American law. This isn’t ad hominem; rejecting American law is what “un-American” means, as being American is a political distinction of law. And then you reject what it means to be American by upholding unalienable rights in law by calling mass-murderous Wars of Aggression that by American law must be refused and prosecuted as “armchair debate.” And then you dare to speak for my father after calling me a bastard, and my wife’s father who took seven bullets from Nazis to end Wars of Aggression like in Iraq. You put you final Orwellian touch by adding to your assessment of my character, scholarship and reporting of my being a bastard, paranoid, delusional, and a coward unable to face these questions, as also being a liar.

Thank you for your revealing comments, wow.
February 2, 1:57 PM

wow says:
"...your assessment of my character, scholarship and reporting of my being a bastard, paranoid, delusional, and a coward unable to face these questions, as also being a liar."

That pretty much sums it up. Glad we found something we can agree on.

One last try: I'd rather focus on fixing problems like marching off to war based on erroneous assumptions than rail on about legal issues that will never (and most likely can never) be ajudicated.

And while you rant your legal theories, good people are still dying and being maimed in Iraq.

So first, let's wrap up that mistake, get our people out of there and take care of the wounded. (There is, finally, a plan that appears rational.)

Then we go for systemic change that still recognizes the world as it exists.
February 2, 2:24 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
You can march off to fix problems while rejecting the American rule of law for our government and military to honor their Oath and immediately refuse orders for unlawful war, arrest, and prosecute. You are a traitor to the laws of your country.

You can focus on “fixing” the most vicious paper-thin propaganda to unlawfully invade weak nations sitting on oil as “erroneous assumptions” and saying our most important laws can never be enforced. You enable Wars of Aggression and propagandize for others to be confused rather than clear about the most important law to understand before a soldier engages in combat.

You can pretend about the dead and wounded and back the “plan” of the criminals who engage in unlawful war to kill and maim more Americans and more of our Brothers and Sisters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and perhaps soon Iran.

Yes, this is your last try. I'll delete any comment other than addressing the topic of the article: the legal status of the Iraq war.
February 2, 3:36 PM

wow says:
It's legal, under any applicable US law - the only laws that count, like it or not. No court case has found otherwise, and several have upheld the legality.

And you, Mr. Herman, are guilty of advocating that US military personnel violate their oath of office and effectively mutiny against their lawful orders.

If this government was one-tenth the fascist enterprise you claim, it already would have thrown your posterior into a black hole.

Fortunately, most members of the military have more integrity, honor and honesty than you do.

You are so convinced you are right? Go down to a recruiter, enlist, then refuse to serve in an 'illegal war' and take it to court.

Surprise everyone and demonstrate a little courage of your convictions.
February 3, 6:26 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Wow:
You lie. The applicable law authorizing discretionary use of force is explicitly limited by the UN Charter. You further lie about “several” court cases; there is one I know of that didn’t rule on the legality of war under the UN Charter but on the issue whether Congress can authorize presidential discretion for use of force.

I trust the military, government, and readers to determine for themselves the obvious illegality of the war and your loveless propaganda for more death, destruction, and misery in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and I’m sure you’ll also shill for Iranian deaths. More…
February 3, 6:57 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: Explain HOW the war is legal, wow. Explain the topic of this article: how are all 27 UK lawyers in international law wrong, along with the unanimous finding of the Dutch government? Explain how UNSC Res. 1441 could be “interpreted” for war with Iraq.

If it’s so legal, as you claim, you should be able to explain it. You haven’t done so after repeated requests. So we have my detailed and self-evident explanation why the war is illegal in Orwellian degree that’s as easy to understand as our football example versus your naked statement that it must be legal because the Fuhrer said so. Explain the legality, wow, if you dare put the inane reasoning into print for all to see.
February 3, 6:57 AM

Note: I deleted wow’s further comment below as he refuses to address the main topic of what the UN Charter says about war, how 1441 authorizes it, or even to document his non-existent court cases and then lie about the UN Charter’s treaty status equal in force to US law as explicitly written in the Constitution. I think he continued to post under “Yail,” who repeats the Orwellian argument that law is not law and the law that exists is so unclear as to allow the exact act it prohibits.

wow says:
As expected, all talk, no action. Try to persuade honorable men and women to throw away their honor and ruin their lives - but no guts to actually take a stand yourself.

You need to do a little more research into those court cases - but you won't, because you suffer from the same disease that affected the Bush administration: you decide, then look for evidence to support your decisions.

As for rest - others have dissected your flawed analogies, although few have escaped the delete key. You rely on an interpretation of UN resolutions being superior to US law that has never been upheld in court; the only relevant court cases to date have found to the contrary, in fact.

You are, in the end, worse than a distraction - you give aid and comfort to the warmongers by presenting an opposition that can be dismissed as conspiracy kooks, Israel haters and nutjobs who consider terrorist murderers to be more credible than their own government.
February 3, 8:21 AM

Yail says:
Really, the UN has no real legal distinction in the world. International law only has meaning with an enforcement mechanism and there is no world government. Unfortunately, states will never give up their sovereignty to make decisions regarding their security. The only time this happens is when a state is so weak that it must bandwagon. The reason the P5 have veto power at the UNSC is just so no legal niceties will get involved when a Great Power wishes to do what it wishes. The UN Charter is also not "crystal clear?" regarding when war is legitimate. It mentions self-defense. How we define that is not an easy thing. It was left vague precisely so the Great Powers could create their own definitions of self-defense. Without these compromises the UN would not exist. Likely it will have major problems as new powers rise that do not have effective representation at the UN. Why would India allow the UN to decide its national interest? Answer: it won't.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e24593.htm

[Ed Jewett]

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

THE MEDIA AND 'LIMITED HANGOUT'

Pakistan's General Ahmed.
Sometimes the CIA and its friends get caught out.

1. Americans are informed by the more honest parts of the media that Pakistan's former spy boss General Ahmed arranged for $100,000 to be sent to Mohamad Atta. ('Our Friends the Pakistanis' - The Wall Street Journal)

2. Americans discover that acts of terrorism in Europe, such as the Bologna Bombing of 1980, have been carried out by right wing forces, rather than by leftists.

3. The Turks discover that army generals have been planning acts of terrorism which they intend to blame on al Qaeda.

4. The people of India discover that alleged Mumbai Terrorism mastermind David Headley has been working for the US government.


However, the CIA and its media friends always have a cunning plan, and it's called 'Limited Hangout'.

twelfthbough.blogspot.com/ tells us about Limited Hangout (take one for the team)

A 'limited hangout' is when the CIA and its media friends admit to some of the truth.

1. Yes, some Pakistani bloke called Ahmed arranged for money to be sent to Atta.

2. Yes, the Bologna Bombing was done by fascists.

3. Yes, some Turkish generals have planned and carried out acts of terrorism.

4. Yes, David Headley worked for the US Drugs Enforcement Administration.
HSBC bank in Istanbul.
However, with a 'limited hangout', the CIA and its media friends then tell lies, or keep quiet, about the rest of the story.

1. The CIA and its friends will keep quiet about the fact that General Ahmed was in Washington at the time of 9 11 and had meetings with top CIA and Pentagon people. (Cached)

2. The CIA and its friends will not tell the truth that the Bologna Bombing fascists were 'agents of the US government and NATO'. (aangirfan: The Bologna Bomb 1980, Gladio, terrorism in Europe )

3. They will not tell the truth that certain Turkish generals, involved in terrorism, were part of the CIA's network of "Stay Behind" secret armies. (Operation Gladio: CIA Network of "Stay Behind" Secret Armies)

4. They will not tell the truth that David Headley shows all the signs of being a loyal agent of the US government. (aangirfan: DAVID HEADLEY, PALACES AND WAR)
David Headley

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals.

"When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case.

"The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further." - (take one for the team)

~~


posted by Anon at 12:35 AM


####

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

DISINFORMATION TACTICS

Image from: lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2006_06_01...

Sometimes journalists get killed. (Poynter Online - Journalists Who Die)

Manik Saha, a journalist in Bangladesh who had reported on drug traffickers, died when a bomb was hurled at his rickshaw and decapitated him.

Ruel Endrinal was shot dead after he had spoken out against local politicians and criminal gangs in Legazpi City in the eastern Philippines.

http://arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com/ alerted us to disinformation tactics and techniques, and this has inspired the following:
Sometimes, especially when it comes to the internet, the bad guys use disinformation tactics.
Internet "trolls" are the people paid by the bad guys to hit the blogs, or even to run blogs.

"Disinformation Tactics: The Methods Used To Keep You In The Dark" is an article by Giordano Bruno, at Neithercorp Press , which explains this.
In the following, I have borrowed his headings.
Trolls use the following tactics:
1) They make outrageous comments.
They may write that a certain politician is a c***.
This can discredit the blog.
2) They pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement.
They may write that 9 11 was an inside job.
And then later they launch into a mad racist rant, and call for revolution.
3) They dominate discussions
They leave huge numbers of crazy, illiterate comments.
4) They use false association
They try to link truth seekers with UFOs or aliens or communists or Nazis.
6) They pretend to be the voice of reason
For example they may claim that truth is relative and that governments sometimes have to do bad things...
7) Straw Man Arguments
The troll might unfairly accuse his opposition of supporting some lunatic viewpoint.
Much of what the media has written about Mumbai is probably disinformation.
Then there are these Government Disinformation Methods

1) Control The Experts
The BBC or CNN will bring out as its expert someone who secretly works for the CIA or MI6.
2) Control The Data
When there is an incident like the Lockerbie Bombing, the spooks will be in place to take control of the 'evidence' and the 'data'.
3) Skew The Statistics
Statistics on weather or unemployment can be fiddled with.
4) Guilt By False Association
The bad guys try to associate Ron Paul supporters with racist groups.
5) Manufacture Good News
The media tells us that all has gone well in Iraq.

6) Controlled Opposition
The security services set up and run the terror groups.
The security services infiltrate and try to dominate all the political and pressure groups.
7) False Paradigms or Models
The media told us that either we were a sensible person who supported the toppling of Saddam, or, we were a lover of Saddam and his regime.
The media told us these were the two sides of the debate.
But the media did not tell us that Saddam was trained and put into power by the CIA.
Nor did the media tell us that Saddam offered to leave Iraq to avoid a war.


posted by Anon at 11:52 AM

[Ed Jewett]

Untold millions spent on intelligence deception ops


I’ve been reading a fascinating new book about British intelligence’s deception operations against the Axis powers and wondering whether anything so effective could be applied against al-Qaeda and other Muslim extremists.
Even putting aside the obvious joke that we’ve spent much of the past decade deceiving ourselves about the Middle East, it seems late in the game to contemplate fooling al-Qaeda or the Taliban about much of anything we’re doing.
Indeed, quite the opposite seems to be taking place in Afghanistan, where NATO announced its offensive in Marja and is telegraphing the same now about Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold. Is this some obscure new twist to psychological warfare, or just submission to the obvious -- telling the Taliban what they’ll soon enough know? The only surprise left in our quiver seems to be drone attacks.
Many of the most entertaining stories in Nicholas Rankin’s “A Genius for Deception: How Cunning Helped the British Win Two World Wars,” would seem to have little applicability today. It’s laughable, for example, to contemplate using one of the Brits’ most successful tricks, deploying wooden tanks and aircraft, to deceive al-Qaeda’s spies, as the Allies did with great success against the Germans and Italians in World War II, culminating in the phony army assembled under Gen. George S. Patton’s command to mislead the Germans about the invasion of Europe. Then there was the famous “Man Who Never Was,” a corpse with phony orders meant to be discovered by the Nazis.
It would seem difficult to trick al-Qaeda or the Taliban about much today. But it turns out we are spending hundreds of millions on psychological warfare, if you read past last month’s lurid headlines about a “rogue” Pentagon official using “information operations” as a cover for targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders for assassination.
So either something big is going on in psychological warfare that is far from obvious -- which, I suppose, is the way it should be or it wouldn’t work -- or we’re being bilked of ungodly millions by psycho-warriors whose target is less the Taliban than the American taxpayer.
Important clues on this could be found deep in a March 29 story by Walter Pincus, The Washington Post’s venerable reader of fine print.
According to Pincus, the Joint Information Operations Warfare Center at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas has a 435-person unit that "plans, integrates and synchronizes information operations in direct support of joint forces commanders . . . across the Defense Department," according its mission statement, which include "psychological operations . . . and military deception."
In just Iraq between 2006 and 2008, Pincus found, the U.S. Central Command alone had 172 contracts worth $270 million.
They included the “development of television commercials and documentaries, focus group and polling services, television air time, posters, banners, and billboards, " according to the Defense Department’s inspector general. Other items included "magazine publishing and printing services, newspaper dissemination, television and radio airtime, text messaging services, internet services and novelty items.”
Novelty items?
Let’s presume for the moment that all this money was secretly funneled to favored Iraqi publishers, broadcasters, political parties and activists between 2006 and 2008 -- back in 2005 it was revealed that the Pentagon had paid a Washington p.r. group tens of millions of dollars to manufacture upbeat propaganda on the Iraq war for Baghdad newspapers -- and that we’re doing the same in Afghanistan, for similar amounts of money. And in Pakistan, almost certainly, and any other cockpit of extremist Muslim ferment.
As Daniel Shulman and David Corn reported March 19 in Mother Jones, an outfit called International Safety Networks, piloted by the same execs caught up in last month’s “rogue” controversy, “has offered to perform information operations for clients, touting its ability to 'shape, produce, place and monitor media and messages' in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region."
The Pentagon’s total budget for “global strategic communications … to help advance military objectives … is nearly impossible to determine,” the Stimson Center reported last month, “because these sums are buried within very general Operations and Maintenance budgets.“
Stimson’s best guess for fiscal year 2010 was “at least $626 million – and there is no indication of how or to what end it was used.”
Which may be appropriate -- after all, how can it work if it’s public? Or as Winston Churchill famously said, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
But in a war where we’re already telling the enemy when and where we’re coming, and the man on the street in Kandahar knows the score, what’s the multi-million dollar point?

2010
04
05
08
00
By Jeff Stein | April 5, 2010; 8:00 AM ET
Categories: Intelligence

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/...intel.html

[Ed Jewett]

April 14, 2010
Air Force Adds Cyberwar to Mandatory Training


By David Sims
TMCnet Contributing Editor

Flying into the 21st century, the United States Air Force has announced that it will “train all new recruits in the basics of cyberwarfare,” four-star Gen. Robert Kehler said Monday.

The Associated Press (News - Alert) notesthat “details are still being worked out on a cyberwarfare component for basic training, but it would be brief, perhaps an hour or two total, and would cover only the fundamentals.”

A more advanced, undergraduate-level training program will begin in June to train officers and enlisted personnel for a new Air Force career field in cyber operations, Kehler told the AP.

Kehler heads the Air Force Space Command, which oversees the Air Force’s cyberwar operations, at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. He told the AP that the basic training component would cover such basic precautions as using firewalls and passwords:

"We teach them at basic training fundamentals of an M-16 (rifle), for example, and an M-9 (pistol), and so we want them to know the fundamentals of the computer network that they're going to be operating in.”

The first class will include about 16 officers, Kehler said, adding that “several sessions are planned each year because the Air Force will need to produce about 400 officers annually with skills in cyberwarfare.”

In related news, Washington Technology reportsthat Booz Allen and Hamilton (News - Alert) Inc. has won a pair of contracts totaling approximately $34.2 million to help the Air Force strengthen its cyber defense capabilities.

According to the journal, “under a $19.8 million contract, Booz Allen will help foster collaboration among telecommunications researchers, University of Maryland faculty members and other academic institutions to improve secure networking and telecommunications and boost information assurance,” citing Department of Defense statements:

“Under a $14.4 million contract, the company will provide assistance for the establishment of a new command center for the U.S. Cyber Command, the officials said.”

David Sims is a contributing editor for TMCnet. To read more of David’s articles, please visit his columnist page. He also blogs for TMCnet here.

Edited by Stefania Viscusi

http://data-voice-solutions.tmcnet.com/top...ry-training.htm