"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Monday, September 15, 2014

obama has started the Isaiah 17 /Psalm 83 10 Arab states agree to join US-led military campaign against Islamic State

10 Arab states agree to join US-led military campaign against Islamic State

Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and six Gulf states including rich rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar agree to join coalition to fight radical Sunni militants.

US Secretary of State John Kerry (C) poses with his Arab counterparts in Jeddah September 11, 2014. . (photo credit:REUTERS)

JEDDAH - The United States signed up Arab allies on Thursday to a "coordinated military campaign" against Islamic State fighters, a major step in building regional support for President Barack Obama's plan to strike both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi frontier.

After talks in Saudi Arabia's summer capital Jeddah, Secretary of State John Kerry won backing from 10 Arab countries - Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and six Gulf states including rich rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar - for a coalition to fight the Sunni militants that have seized swathes of Iraq and Syria.

"Arab nations play a critical role in that coalition, the leading role really across all lines of effort: military support, humanitarian aid, our work to stop the flow of illegal funds," Kerry told a news conference.

Non-Arab Sunni power Turkey also attended the Jeddah talks but two other major regional players - Shi'ite Iran and Syria itself - were excluded, a sign of the difficulty of building a coalition across the Middle East's sectarian battle lines.

The Arab states agreed in a communique to do more to stop the flow of funds and fighters to Islamic State and help rebuild communities "brutalized" by the group.

"The participating states agreed to do their share in the comprehensive fight against ISIS, including ... as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign against ISIS," they said, using the acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a former name for the group.

Kerry met the Arab leaders to drum up support a day after Obama announced his plans to strike fighters in Iraq and Syria.

US officials said Kerry also sought permission to make more use of bases in the region and fly more warplanes overhead, issues that were not mentioned in the communique. Kerry said none of the countries in the coalition would send ground troops.

In a hopeful sign of outreach across the sectarian divide that has spread war across the Middle East and fed Islamic State's militancy, Sunni Saudi Arabia said it might open an embassy in Shi'ite-ruled Iraq after decades of suspicion.

The Saudis, who support other Sunni armed movements in Syria but consider Islamic State a terrorist group, have also promised to help Obama's campaign by providing training camps for moderate Syrian Sunni fighters.

But Iran, the main Shi'ite power in the Middle East and supporter of Syria's President Bashar Assad, said it had severe reservations over the new US-led coalition, and doubted it would fight "the root causes of terrorism", which it blames squarely on Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia.

Obama announced his plans in a prime time address on Wednesday to build an alliance to root out Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, plunging the United States into two conflicts in which nearly every country in the Middle East has a stake.

The region has been galvanized since June when Islamic State fighters, already in control of much of Syria, swept through northern Iraq, seizing cities, slaughtering prisoners, and proclaiming a "caliphate" that would rule over all Muslims.

The White House says the group is a threat to the West as well, attracting fighters from around the world who could return to carry out attacks at home.

Islamic State is a Sunni group that embraces a radical vision of a Middle East ruled along 7th century precepts. Its fighters are battling a Shi'ite-led government in Iraq and a Syrian government led by Assad, a follower of an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. They are also fighting against more moderate Sunnis in Syria and against Kurds on both side of the frontier.

An alliance against Islamic State is bound to require cooperation from countries that consider each other enemies. Washington itself supports the Shi'ite-led government in Iraq but opposes Assad in Syria; it is allied to most Sunni Arab states while hostile to Iran.

A State Department official traveling with Kerry said the top US diplomat would the ask allies to make room for US military activity: "We may need enhanced basing and overflights ... there's going to be a meeting soon of defense ministers to work on these details."

Kerry would also urge regional television news outlets, particularly Qatari-owned Al Jazeera and Saudi-owned Al Arabiya, to air anti-extremist messages. Governments in the region would be urged to press mosques to preach against Islamic State.

"They need to get at the clerics because the clerics can get at the mosques in the neighborhood and they have to expose ISIS for what it is," the official told reporters.

Washington also wants more efforts to stop the flow of money to the group by tackling oil smuggling and cracking down on contributions from private donors, the official said.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil told Reuters there was extensive discussion in Jeddah about whether the campaign should be broadened to include other Islamist groups, not just Islamic State. This is something that strongly anti-Islamist Gulf Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates had sought.

Despite attending the talks, Turkey was not mentioned in the communique, an omission attributed by a senior Turkish official to sensitivities about 46 Turkish hostages held by the fighters. Turkey will discuss the needs of the alliance with Kerry on a visit to Ankara he starts on Friday, the official said.

Isaiah 17 King James Version (KJV)

17 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

²The cities of Aroer are forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
³The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the Lord of hosts.
⁴And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean.
⁵And it shall be as when the harvestman gathereth the corn, and reapeth the ears with his arm; and it shall be as he that gathereth ears in the valley of Rephaim.
⁶Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it, as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof, saith the Lord God of Israel.
⁷At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.
⁸And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images.
⁹In that day shall his strong cities be as a forsaken bough, and an uppermost branch, which they left because of the children of Israel: and there shall be desolation.
¹⁰Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants, and shalt set it with strange slips:
¹¹In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
¹²Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!
¹³The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
¹⁴And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us.

Psalm 83 King James Version (KJV)

83 Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God.

²For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.
³They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.
⁴They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
⁵For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:
⁶The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes;
⁷Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre;
⁸Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.
⁹Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison:
¹⁰Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth.
¹¹Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna:
¹²Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.
¹³O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.
¹⁴As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire;
¹⁵So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.
¹⁶Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O Lord.
¹⁷Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:
¹⁸That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.

The propaganda war Obama is losing

One critical part will be keeping Americans from joining ISIL in the first place. | Getty

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 9/9/14 5:02 AM EDT Updated: 9/9/14 12:04 PM EDT

As President Barack Obama prepares to unveil his strategy for turning back ISIL’s gains in Syria and Iraq, the headlines will most likely focus on expanding U.S. airstrikes and challenges of defeating the group without involving American troops.
But one potentially critical part of the battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant also seems poised for a big new push: working to keep foreign fighters — including Americans — from joining the group in the first place.

Latest on POLITICO

Officials and outside experts say an essential part of fighting ISIL, Al Qaeda and similar groups is undercutting their propaganda on social media and elsewhere, while identifying and dissuading Americans and foreigners who might be considering travel to join up with such groups or — even worse — trying to emulate them at home.

(Also on POLITICO: Rank-and-file divided on ISIL vote)
So far, at least two Americans have been killed fighting for ISIL in the Iraq/Syria region, according to U.S. officials. Dozens of other U.S. citizens are being tracked fighting with that or other radical groups.
Past U.S. efforts at what the government calls “countering violent extremism,” or “CVE,” have been ham-handed, understaffed and underfunded, former officials from both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations say. They only get attention from senior policymakers in the wake of highly publicized terrorist incidents.
“We need a much more effective counternarrative,” Obama conceded in an interview aired Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
There was interest at the beginning of the Obama administration, but it has tailed off.
(Also on POLITICO: Poll: Most think ISIL attack possible)
“The people that were interested in this stuff have moved on from it,” said former State Department official Will McCants, now with the Brookings Institution. “It was always a box-checking activity. There was not a serious effort to build a real program in the U.S. The strategy paper was written and then the air went out of it completely.”
Some lawmakers share the perception that the administration’s CVE efforts are not well-focused. A House subcommittee is set to hold a hearing Wednesday on the “foreign fighter” problem. Staffers are already probing executive branch agencies to prepare for future hearings on the dangers posed by recruiting of Americans and weaknesses in the government’s response.
“I am concerned we are not doing enough to combat the rising threat of domestic radicalization,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas). “These efforts have never been more important, and my committee will be taking a hard look at what the administration is doing on this front.”
(Also on POLITICO: W. H. to brief Hill on ISIL)
Notwithstanding Obama’s concession about the need to strengthen the counternarrative, the White House contends that the administration has been aggressive about undermining terrorist messages and recruitment.
“CVE continues to be a priority for this administration,” said National Security Council spokesman Ned Price. He pointed to a State Department office “engaged in a sustained campaign against Syria and Iraq-based terrorists’ online messaging, in part to combat their ability to recruit foreign fighters,” and Department of Homeland Security efforts to promote “community-based activities to strengthen resilience in communities targeted by violent extremist recruitment.”
Obama administration officials acknowledge that ISIL is now producing polished Web videos and social media messages leaps and bounds beyond the grainy video releases and scratchy audiotapes Al Qaeda has long been known for.
ISIL “operates the most sophisticated propaganda machine of any extremist group … as a result, ISIL threatens to outpace Al Qaeda as the dominant voice of influence in the global extremist movement,” National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen said last week at the Brookings Institution.
(Also on POLITICO: Janet Napolitano: Feds were aware of ISIL)
In a separate discussion with reporters Friday, Olsen said NCTC has a “radical extremist messaging” group that closely tracks social media posts. “We actually do spend a significant amount of time on those questions,” he said.
But converting knowledge about radical groups’ propaganda into effective countermessages has proved harder than just sweeping up the info, Olsen said. “That is an area where I do think we can spend additional time and resources…. I think there’s an opportunity for more work to be done in countermessaging,” he said.
That doesn’t mean the U.S. is the best messenger. The improved “counternarrative” needed to defeat ISIL “can’t come from us,” Obama said on NBC.
‘OUR WORK IS TO BE ATTACK DOGS’
An office Obama created at the State Department three years ago, the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, is attempting to counter ISIL’s sophisticated and prolific social media presence. In recent weeks, it has been promoting a mock recruiting video for the Islamic State, including extremely graphic images of the group executing Muslims and carrying out a suicide bombing in a mosque.
“We have basically a negative role, bringing the light to shine on the adversary’s action, principally using their own words and deeds against them,” said a State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“In a political campaign, you have the guy who does the ‘Morning in America’ stuff… and the other guy you hire to do attack ads and opposition research. We’re the other guy….Our work is to be attack dogs.”
The counterterrorism social media shop, which includes personnel on loan from various government agencies, has been feeding out information in Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi and Somali for some time. In December, the office began posting in English, largely in response to concerns that ISIL and other groups were doing more recruiting in Europe. “We identified they were seeking to kind of metastasize and grow beyond the Middle Eastern languages and the Middle East audiences [and try] to reach radical young men in the West,” the State official said.

Critics have faulted the office for sometimes engaging in pointless trolling with militants who seem unlikely to be swayed by U.S. government messages. However, the State official defended the practice. “You’re trying to challenge the audience that person is trying to reach,” the official said.
The broader anti-extremism effort has suffered from a lack of central authority in the U.S. government, especially when compared to those involved in planning responses like military strikes, one former official said.

“When you’re looking at use of hard power, there’s accountability. The buck stops with a particular person. With regard to soft power, it doesn’t,” said Farah Pandith, who stepped down in January at the U.S.’s Special Representative to Muslim Communities and previously served on the National Security Council under Bush.

The official who coordinated governmentwide policy on countering extremism until last spring, Quintan Wiktorowicz, said the Obama administration had crafted good policies on the issue but never tied much funding to the effort.
Instead of hiring staff to work with U.S. communities susceptible to terrorist recruiting, the administration decided to have U.S. Attorneys take the lead, even if federal prosecutors are not the ideal individuals to reach out to those in contact with troubled youth.
Wiktorowicz said the main problem with relying on U.S. Attorneys is that the anti-radicalization effort seems certain to get short shrift. “If you think about the roles and responsibilities of U.S. Attorneys, they can’t possibly take on that function in a really robust way,” he said.
Some have questioned how much effort and money should be invested in fighting ISIL recruitment in the U.S. given how relatively rare that is. U.S. government officials say their best estimate at the moment is that about a dozen Americans are fighting with the group. However, the broader picture is murky. About 100 Americans are believed to have traveled to Syria or Iraq for reasons the U.S. government deems suspicious.
By contrast, Europeans are dealing with larger populations of citizens making their way to groups like ISIL and its Al Qaeda counterpart, Al-Nusra. According to European intelligence estimates, about 800 Britons, 600 French, 400 Germans and about 200 Belgians are believed to have gone to the region to fight as part of one of the radical groups.
“I’m not really worried about the threat they pose when they come back. Our security apparatus will be all over them — and a lot of guys will not come back,” McCants said of the American recruits. “My greater concern is why are they going in the first place? That to me is the big countering violent extremism question that isn’t being asked yet.”
“We have to be more sophisticated about this,” Pandith said. “This ideology is preying upon Muslim Millennials who are having a crisis of identity. If you don’t get that, you’ll never be able to get ahead of that.”
A report issued in 2012 warned that strategies used to fight Islamic radicalization problems in Europe might be ill-suited to the U.S. and could even backfire as some U.S. anti-drug programs did.
“Aggressively informing U.S. communities about al-Qaeda propaganda might result in a similar outcome as the War on Drug’s D.A.R.E. program (obviously, on a much smaller scale) as a result of greater exposure to al-Qaeda’s message and the repeated warnings to stay away from it, which only encourages curiosity,” said the Foreign Policy Research Institute paper, written by McCants and Clinton Watts.
More aggressive efforts to thwart recruiting raise other thorny questions as well. Muslim groups have complained bitterly about FBI sting operations that critics say sometimes target impressionable teenagers and offer people fake bombs and high-powered weapons they could never acquire or design on their own. However, using intelligence gathered online to stage some kind of intervention through religious leaders or school officials could present privacy and civil liberties problems.
“Legally, even perceptually, people are very, very uncomfortable with going into that space ,” said Wiktorowicz. “There needs to be some adjustment in terms of being open to using softer instruments for individuals who have not crossed that line where there’s a high potential to draw that individual back through other forms of interventions … To some extent, we have not been willing to invest the energy and resources to have that conversation about what we really are and are not legally allowed to do.”
WHAT’S THE MESSAGE?
Another central problem for the U.S. in the current anti-terror fight is that U.S. foreign policy lacks a central theme that can be easily explained and have appeal to potential terrorist converts, some critics say.
“If we don’t persuade some kid trying to decide whether or not to strap on a suicide vest in the boonies of Yemen or Iraq not to do it, he’s going to do it…. So, where’s a narrative that will persuade these folks?” former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) asked at the Aspen Security Forum in July.
“I’m not saying it is U.S. foreign policy, but the perception of our foreign policy in much of the Middle East is: ‘Don’t Do Stupid Stuff, plus use drones,’” she said. “I don’t think that’s winning any heart or mind or any mind or heart.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton struck a similar chord in an interview last month. “We don’t even tell our own story very well these days,” she said in an interview with The Atlantic. She later retreated from the comments.
Some warn that coming up with a narrative about the U.S. that appeals to Muslims in Europe or the Middle East could be difficult or impossible without major changes to American foreign policy that don’t currently seem to be in the cards.
“There isn’t a narrative because our policy sucks,” said James Zogby of the Arab American Institute. “We’re flying drones….We forget Abu Ghraib. We forget rendition. They don’t. You can’t alter the narrative if you keep doing bad stuff….They don’t dislike our values, they just don’t think they apply to them.”
Many analysts argue that much of the Bush administration’s post-9/11 effort at counterterrorist propaganda — largely messages about how integrated and respected Muslims are in American public life — fell flat because it focused on the U.S. rather than the weaknesses of Al Qaeda and its allies. Trying to sell the average man on the street in many majority-Muslim countries is a fool’s errand that isn’t the easiest way to undercut terrorist groups like ISIL, those experts say.
“CVE fails when it’s about selling us. It’s not about selling us, it’s about countering the jihadis’ narrative,” said one ex-official, who asserted that $1 billion has been spent on trying to sway Pakistani public opinion — to little avail. “The idea that the Pakistanis are going to like us anytime soon is just preposterous. It’s the wrong message.”
One expert said the brutality of ISIL’s recent activities present a good opportunity for the U.S. to step up its counter-extremism game.
“ISIS presents a huge, fat target for those who want to counter the narrative,” said former State Department counterterrorism coordinator Daniel Benjamin. “The mayhem they’re causing, the bloodshed they’re causing is extraordinary and it’s really quite urgent to get on this.…It’s important to be taking this seriously now.”

Feds step up terrorist recruitment fight in U.S.

By JOSH GERSTEIN |

9/15/14 6:01 AM EDT

The U.S. Government is planning to step up its fight against recruiting of Americans by groups like the Islamic State in the Iraq and the Levant, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday.
In a video message posted on the Justice Department's website, Holder said a series of cities "across the nation" will be be chosen to participate in a pilot program that will involve an extra effort to combat the message of groups like ISIL and to intervene with those susceptible to that message before they take action.
"These programs will bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States Attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe," Holder said. "Under President Obama’s leadership, along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country....Ultimately, the pilot programs will enable us to develop more effective – and more inclusive – ways to help build the more just, secure, and free society that all Americans deserve."
(Also on POLITICO: War debate headed past elections)
A Justice Department official said the specific communities participating in the new effort will not be announced until next month. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the White House will host a conference in October on what government officials refer to as "countering violent extremism."
The same official said the new pilot program is aimed at broadening current outreach efforts to involve more people from outside the ranks of law enforcement. "This new initiative will supplement existing efforts by engaging the resources and expertise available from a range of social service providers including education administrators, mental health professionals, and religious leaders to provide more robust support and help facilitate community-led interventions," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
(Also on POLITICO: Brits mourn murdered hostage)
The U.S. Government's current efforts to stem terrorist recruitment and so-called "lone wolf" attacks by people receptive to extremist rhetoric have been criticized for being unfocused and underfunded. In addition, many experts have questioned whether U.S. Attorneys—the top federal prosecutors in various communities—are best-suited to lead the government's anti-extremism campaign.
Many leaders in the Muslim community are reluctant to work with prosecutors because of deep concern over Federal Bureau of Investigation sting operations used to target potential terrorists. However, efforts in the U.S. to use means other than traditional law enforcement to intervene with individuals susceptible to extremist messages have been few, due to concerns about civil liberties as well as fears about what could happen if that kind of intervention failed in a specific case.
(Also on POLITICO: Iran rejects U.S. call to fight ISIL)
Holder's statement Monday seemed to acknowledge some of those concerns. While the outreach efforts are expected to focus primarily on communities with large Muslim populations, his video message made no reference to the religion aside from his use of the acronym for the terrorist group which has grabbed attention for its brutal tactics assembling territory across Syria and Iraq.
"As we move forward together, our work must continue to be guided by the core democratic values – and the ideals of freedom, openness, and inclusion – that have always set this nation apart on the world stage," Holder said. "We must be both innovative and aggressive in countering violent extremism and combating those who would sow intolerance, division, and hate – not just within our borders, but with our international partners on a global scale. And we must never lose sight of what violent extremists fear the most: the strength of our communities; our unwavering respect for equality, civil rights, and civil liberties; and our enduring commitment to justice, democracy, and the rule of law."

Read more about: Justice Department, Eric Holder, Muslims, Propaganda, Counterterrorism, U.S. Attorneys, ISIL, Countering Violent Extremism

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION: ISLAMIC RADICALS INVADING USA

James Foley’s Brother: I Was “Specifically Threatened By State Department” Against Raising Private Funds To Rescue Him..Update: Foley Family Was Threatened With Criminal Prosecution By State Department

One can understand and appreciate the concept of not paying a ransom, not negotiating with terrorists.
But Obama apparently picks and chooses when to negotiate with terrorists, choosing to do so in the case of Bowe Bergdahl, and not in the case of James Foley, as his brother points out.
Indeed, in the Foley case, as his brother notes, the State Department not only didn’t help, but went so far as to specifically threaten him when he and his family tried to raise private funds to rescue his brother. He does not elaborate further on the nature of those threats but said he was “appalled” by the regime’s approach.
Update:
My gosh, we really employ this kind of a State Department? Apparently they threatened the Foley family with criminal prosecution, according to James Foley’s father.
Meanwhile, Obama negotiates with terrorists and trades terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl, and has his family to the Rose Garden to invoke the blessings of Allah….

Nickarama | September 12, 2014 5:33 pm

BREAKING: White House Literally Threatened to Imprison Journalist’s Family [DETAILS]

President Barack Obama may continue to enjoy popularity among liberals, but that’s largely because they have nowhere else to turn. Even that might change after the president’s recent hawkish–for him–address outlining his plan to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
Among conservatives and others, Obama has never enjoyed much support.
One group that is clearly no fan of the Obama administration is made up of many of the family members of those who have died in service to their fellow citizens because of this president’s policies. Mary Ann Mendoza blames Obama’s lax border security for the death of her son, Police Sgt. Brandon Mendoza, who was killed by an illegal immigrant. The parents of fallen Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn have publicly called for President Obama’s resignation for his failure to keep America safe. The father of Army 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews, killed while searching for accused Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, wants an explanation from this president as to what his son died for.
Now Red Flag News reports that the family of another of America’s fallen heroes has no reason to love this president.
According to the report, the brother of James Foley, the first American journalist brutally murdered by the Islamic State as a warning to America and President Obama, recently criticized the Obama administration on a nationally televised interview.

87 Year Old Personal Trainer Shares Secret to Losing Weight

If You Don't Speak Spanish, Watch This Video Now

Do THIS Before Eating Carbs (Every Time)

obama starts Isaiah 17 U.S. to Assad: Beware of interfering with U.S. air power in Syria

U.S. to Assad: Beware of interfering with U.S. air power in Syria

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:02pm EDT

14 Comments

Share this
Email
Print

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad heads a meeting of his cabinet in Damascus August 31, 2014 in this picture released by Syria's national news agency SANA.

Credit: Reuters/SANA/Handout via Reuters

Analysis & Opinion

Isaiah 17 King James Version (KJV)

17 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/08/31/turkey-g20-pre-meeting-london-september-2-5-2009/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/09/14/gchq-attack-stellar-pcs/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/09/04/email-correspondence-reporters-cia-flacks/

The CIA’s Mop-Up Man: L.A. Times Reporter Cleared Stories With Agency Before Publication

By Ken Silverstein 09/04/2014 1:22 PM

A prominent national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times routinely submitted drafts and detailed summaries of his stories to CIA press handlers prior to publication, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.
Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.
“I’m working on a story about congressional oversight of drone strikes that can present a good opportunity for you guys,” Dilanian wrote in one email to a CIA press officer, explaining that what he intended to report would be “reassuring to the public” about CIA drone strikes. In another, after a series of back-and-forth emails about a pending story on CIA operations in Yemen, he sent a full draft of an unpublished report along with the subject line, “does this look better?” In another, he directly asks the flack: “You wouldn’t put out disinformation on this, would you?”

Dilanian’s emails were included in hundreds of pages of documents that the CIA turned over in response to two FOIA requests seeking records on the agency’s interactions with reporters. They include email exchanges with reporters for the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other outlets. In addition to Dilanian’s deferential relationship with the CIA’s press handlers, the documents show that the agency regularly invites journalists to its McLean, Va., headquarters for briefings and other events. Reporters who have addressed the CIA include the Washington Post‘s David Ignatius, the former ombudsmen for the New York Times, NPR, and Washington Post, and Fox News’ Brett Baier, Juan Williams, and Catherine Herridge.
Dilanian left the Times to join the AP last May, and the emails released by the CIA only cover a few months of his tenure at the Times. They show that in June 2012, shortly after 26 members of congress wrote a letter to President Obama saying they were “deeply concerned” about the drone program, Dilanian approached the agency about story that he pitched as “a good opportunity” for the government.
The letter from lawmakers, which was sent in the wake of a flurry of drone strikes that had reportedly killed dozens of civilians, suggested there was no meaningful congressional oversight of the program. But Dilanian wrote that he had been “told differently by people I trust.” He added:

Not only would such a story be reassuring to the public, I would think, but it would also be an opportunity to explore the misinformation about strikes that sometimes comes out of local media reports. It’s one thing for you to say three killed instead of 15, and it’s another for congressional aides from both parties to back you up. Part of what the story will do, if you could help me bring it to fruition, is to quote congressional officials saying that great care is taken to avoid collateral damage and that the reports of widespread civilian casualties are simply wrong.

Of course, journalists routinely curry favor with government sources (and others) by falsely suggesting that they intend to amplify the official point of view. But the emails show that Dilanian really meant it.
Over the next two weeks, he sent additional emails requesting assistance and information from the agency. In one, he suggested that a New America Foundation report alleging that drone attacks had killed many civilians was exaggerated, writing that the report was “all wrong, correct?”
A number of early news accounts reported that more than a dozen people died in the June 4, 2012, drone strike that killed Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan. But in a June 20 email to the CIA, Dilanian shared a sentence from his story draft asserting that al-Libi had died alone. “Would you quibble with this?” he asked the CIA press officer.

On June 25, the Times published Dilanian’s story, which described thorough congressional review of the drone program and said legislative aides were allowed to watch high-quality video of attacks and review intelligence used to justify each strike. Needless to say, the agency hadn’t quibbled with Dilanian’s description of al-Libi’s solitary death. Video provided by the CIA to congressional overseers, Dilanian reported, “shows that he alone was killed.”
That claim was subsequently debunked. In October of 2013, Amnesty International issued a report, based on statements from eyewitnesses and survivors, that the first missile strike targeting al-Libi killed five men and wounded four others. Al-Libi was not even among those victims; he and up to fifteen other people died in a follow up attack when they arrived at the scene to assist victims. Some of those killed were very likely members of al Qaeda, but six were local tribesmen who Amnesty believed were there only as rescuers. Another field report published around the same time, this one by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, also reported follow-up drone strikes on civilians and rescue workers — attacks that constitute war crimes.
Dilanian has done some strong work and has at times been highly critical of the CIA. For example, in July 2012 he wrote a piece about sexual harassment at the agency that angered the press office. In reply to an email from a spokesperson, Dilanian said that complaints about his story were “especially astonishing given that CIA hides the details of these complaints behind a wall of secrecy.”
But the emails reveal a remarkably collegial relationship with the agency. “I am looking forward to working with you, Ken,” a newly hired agency flack wrote him in a March 1, 2012, email.
“Hooray!” Dilanian replied. “Glad to have you guys.”
On March 14, 2012, Dilanian sent an email to the press office with a link to a Guardian story that said Bashar Al-Assad’s wife had been buying a fondue set on Amazon while Syrian protesters were gunned down. “If this is you guys, nice work,” he wrote. “If it’s real, even better.”
The emails also show that Dilanian shared his work with the CIA before it was published, and invited the agency to request changes. On Friday April 27, 2012, he emailed the press office a draft story that he and a colleague, David Cloud, were preparing. The subject line was “this is where we are headed,” and he asked if “you guys want to push back on any of this.”

It appears the agency did push back. On May 2, 2012, he emailed the CIA a new opening to the story with a subject line that asked, “does this look better?”
The piece ran on May 16, and while it bore similarities to the earlier versions, it had been significantly softened.
Here’s the original opening, from Dilanian’s email:

Teams of CIA officers, private contractor and special operations troops have been inserted in southern Yemen to work with local tribes on gathering intelligence for U.S. drone strikes against militants, U.S. officials and others familiar with the secret operation said.

Here’s the version that was published:

In an escalation of America’s clandestine war in Yemen, a small contingent of U.S. troops is providing targeting data for Yemeni airstrikes as government forces battle to dislodge Al Qaeda militants and other insurgents in the country’s restive south, U.S. and Yemeni officials said.

In another case, Dilanian sent the press office a draft story on May 4, 2012, reporting that U.S. intelligence believed the Taliban was growing stronger in Afghanistan. “Guys, I’m about to file this if anyone wants to weigh in,” he wrote.
On May 7, 2012, the AP, Dilanian’s current employer, broke a story about a secret CIA operation that “thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner.” The next day, Dilanian sent the CIA a detailed summary of a planned piece that followed up on (and took issue with) the AP story. “This is what we are planning to report, and I want to make sure you wouldn’t push back against any of it,” he wrote.
Dilanian also closely collaborated with the CIA in a May 2012 story that minimized the agency’s cooperation with director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal on their film about the assassination of Osama bin Laden, Zero Dark Thirty. Republicans had been criticizing the Obama Administration for revealing classified details about the operation to Boal and Bigelow while withholding them from the public.
“My angle on this is that…this is a pretty routine effort to cooperate with filmmakers and the sort of thing the CIA has been doing for 15 years,” Dilanian wrote in an email to Cynthia Rapp, the head of the agency’s press office. “This is a storyline that is in your interest, I would think, to the extent you could provide information about how routine it is to offer guidance to entertainment people who seek it out—including ones who are Democrats!—it would show that this latest episode is hardly a scandal.”
Dilanian’s pitch appears to have worked. His subsequent story included an on the record comment from CIA spokesman Todd Ebitz. One year later, internal CIA documents released under the FOIA showed that the agency’s office of public affairs—the same people Dilanian had been working with–had asked for and received changes to the Zero Dark Thirty script that portrayed the agency in a more favorable light.
Reached by The Intercept for comment, Dilanian said that the AP does not permit him to send stories to the CIA prior to publication, and he acknowledged that it was a bad idea. “I shouldn’t have done it, and I wouldn’t do it now,” he said. “[But] it had no meaningful impact on the outcome of the stories. I probably should’ve been reading them the stuff instead of giving it to them.”
Dilanian said he was not sure if Los Angeles Times rules allow reporters to send stories to sources prior to publication. The Time’s ethics guidelines, however, clearly forbid the practice: “We do not circulate printed or electronic copies of stories outside the newsroom before publication. In the event you would like to read back quotations or selected passages to a source to ensure accuracy, consult an editor before doing so….”
Bob Drogin, the Times’ deputy bureau chief and national security editor, said he had been unaware that Dilanian had sent story drafts to the CIA and would have not allowed him to do it. “Ken is a diligent reporter and it’s responsible to seek comment and response to your reporting,” he told me. “But sharing story drafts is not appropriate.”
AP spokesman Paul Colford told The Intercept that the news organization is “satisfied that any pre-publication exchanges that Ken had with the CIA before joining AP were in pursuit of accuracy in his reporting on intelligence matters,” adding that “we do not coordinate with government agencies on the phrasing of material.”
Dilanian’s emails were included in a FOIA request that sought communications between the CIA and ten national security reporters sent from March to July 2012. That request turned up correspondence between the press office and Dilanian, Adam Goldman, then at the AP and now at The Washington Post, Matt Apuzzo, then at AP and now at The New York Times, Brian Bennett of The Los Angeles Times, Siobhan Gorman of The Wall Street Journal, Scott Shane of the New York Times, and David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist.
It’s impossible to know precisely how the CIA flacks responded to reporters’ queries, because the emails show only one side of the conversations. The CIA redacted virtually all of the press handlers’ replies other than meager comments that were made explicitly on the record, citing the CIA Act of 1949, which exempts the agency from having to disclose “intelligence sources and methods” or “the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency.” The contents of off-the-record or background emails from CIA press handlers clearly don’t disclose names, titles, or salaries (which can easily be redacted anyway); they may disclose sources and methods, depending on whether you view manipulation of American reporters as an intelligence method. (The Intercept is appealing the redactions.)

The emails also show that the CIA asked the Post‘s Ignatius to speak at a May 2012 off-the-record conference, “Political Islam’s Future: Challenges, Choices, and Uncertainties,” for U.S. government intelligence analysts and policymakers. The invitation was extended in an email from the press office, which said that the conference organizers “would like you to draw upon the insight from your field experience, reporting, and broad network of contacts during the lead up to the Arab Spring to share how journalists sense that major political, social, or religious changes are in the making.”
Ignatius replied that he would be “pleased and honored to do this,” but unfortunately he would be traveling in Europe on the day of the conference. The CIA then proposed “a smaller round table with our…folks sometime in the future.”
“Smaller round table would be great,” Ignatius replied.
Ignatius told The Intercept that the round table never took place. But he confirmed that he had previously spoken to the CIA twice since 2005. “I talked to them about how journalists collect information,” he said. “It was meant as an admonition and a caution about the need to get things right and not to bend to political pressure and to have systems in place to catch errors.”
Ignatius said he had gotten approval of his editors before he spoke to the CIA, and didn’t see any conflict or problem with addressing the agency. “There’s a very sharp line between our profession and the intelligence business and it shouldn’t be crossed,” he said. “I talked to them about what I’d learned as an editor and the importance of getting it right. I wasn’t sharing any [sensitive] information with them.
Records released in response to another FOIA request, seeking information about journalists who had been invited to address or debrief CIA employees, show that several Fox News reporters have visited the agency.
Fox News’ Bret Baier gave an address about the importance of charity in 2008 (which was reported at the time), and the then-ombudsmen for NPR, The Washington Post, and The New York Times (Jeffrey Dvorkin, Michael Getler and Daniel Okrent, respectively), appeared together on a CIA panel. The event description said that journalism “shares some of the same missions that intelligence analysts have—presenting information in an unbiased fashion and challenging prevailing opinions.” The ombudsmen, the invitation said, could help the CIA “see how journalists deal with some of our common professional and ethical difficulties.” (It’s not clear from the documents when the ombudsmen event was held, but it would have been in 2009 or before.)
In 2007, Juan Williams, then at NPR in addition to his role at Fox News, gave a “standing-room-only” speech sponsored by the agency’s Office of Diversity Plans and Programs. During his speech Williams praised CIA personnel as “the best and brightest,” and said Americans admired the agency and trusted it “to guide the nation and the nation’s future.”
Williams also spoke about Nelson Mandela, saying he was an example of a leader who “came from outside the system.” There was a certain irony here—the CIA played a key role in Mandela’s 1962 arrest by the South African apartheid regime, which resulted in him spending 28 years in prison—which Williams was either unaware of or politely chose not to note.
Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Email the author: kensilverstein@firstlook.org

Snowden: New Zealand’s Prime Minister Isn’t Telling the Truth About Mass Surveillance

By Edward Snowden Today at 12:33 AM

Like many nations around the world, New Zealand over the last year has engaged in a serious and intense debate about government surveillance. The nation’s prime minister, John Key of the National Party, has denied that New Zealand’s spy agency GCSB engages in mass surveillance, mostly as a means of convincing the country to enact a new law vesting the agency with greater powers. This week, as a national election approaches, Key repeated those denials in anticipation of a report in The Intercept today exposing the Key government’s actions in implementing a system to record citizens’ metadata.
Let me be clear: any statement that mass surveillance is not performed in New Zealand, or that the internet communications are not comprehensively intercepted and monitored, or that this is not intentionally and actively abetted by the GCSB, is categorically false. If you live in New Zealand, you are being watched. At the NSA I routinely came across the communications of New Zealanders in my work with a mass surveillance tool we share with GCSB, called “XKEYSCORE.” It allows total, granular access to the database of communications collected in the course of mass surveillance. It is not limited to or even used largely for the purposes of cybersecurity, as has been claimed, but is instead used primarily for reading individuals’ private email, text messages, and internet traffic. I know this because it was my full-time job in Hawaii, where I worked every day in an NSA facility with a top secret clearance.
The prime minister’s claim to the public, that “there is no and there never has been any mass surveillance” is false. The GCSB, whose operations he is responsible for, is directly involved in the untargeted, bulk interception and algorithmic analysis of private communications sent via internet, satellite, radio, and phone networks.
If you have doubts, which would be quite reasonable, given what the last year showed us about the dangers of taking government officials at their word, I invite you to confirm this for yourself. Actual pictures and classified documentation of XKEYSCORE are available online now, and their authenticity is not contested by any government. Within them you’ll find that the XKEYSCORE system offers, but does not require for use, something called a “Five Eyes Defeat,” the Five Eyes being the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and yes, New Zealand.
This might seem like a small detail, but it’s very important. The Five Eyes Defeat is an optional filter, a single checkbox. It allows me, the analyst, to prevent search results from being returned on those countries from a particular search. Ask yourself: why do analysts have a checkbox on a top secret system that hides the results of mass surveillance in New Zealand if there is no mass surveillance in New Zealand?
The answer, one that the government of New Zealand has not been honest about, is that despite claims to the contrary, mass surveillance is real and happening as we speak. The GCSB provides mass surveillance data into XKEYSCORE. They also provide access to the communications of millions of New Zealanders to the NSA at facilities such as the GCSB station at Waihopai, and the Prime Minister is personally aware of this fact. Importantly, they do not merely use XKEYSCORE, but also actively and directly develop mass surveillance algorithms for it. GCSB’s involvement with XKEYSCORE is not a theory, and it is not a future plan. The claim that it never went ahead, and that New Zealand merely “looked at” but never participated in the Five Eyes’ system of mass surveillance is false, and the GCSB’s past and continuing involvement with XKEYSCORE is irrefutable.
But what does it mean?
It means they have the ability see every website you visit, every text message you send, every call you make, every ticket you purchase, every donation you make, and every book you order online. From “I’m headed to church” to “I hate my boss” to “She’s in the hospital,” the GCSB is there. Your words are intercepted, stored, and analyzed by algorithms long before they’re ever read by your intended recipient.
Faced with reasonable doubts, ask yourself just what it is that stands between these most deeply personal communications and the governments of not just in New Zealand, but also the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia?
The answer is that solitary checkbox, the Five Eyes Defeat. One checkbox is what separates our most sacred rights from the graveyard of lost liberty. When an officer of the government wants to know everything about everyone in their society, they don’t even have to make a technical change. They simply uncheck the box. The question before us is no longer “why was this done without the consent and debate of the people of this country,” but “what are we going to do about it?”
This government may have total control over the checkbox today, but come Sept. 20, New Zealanders have a checkbox of their own. If you live in New Zealand, whatever party you choose to vote for, bear in mind the opportunity to send a message that this government won’t need to spy on us to hear: The liberties of free people cannot be changed behind closed doors. It’s time to stand up. It’s time to restore our democracies. It’s time to take back our rights. And it starts with you.
National security has become the National Party’s security. What we’re seeing today is that in New Zealand, the balance between the public’s right to know and the propriety of a secret is determined by a single factor: the political advantage it offers to a specific party and or a specific politician. This misuse of New Zealand’s spying apparatus for the benefit of a single individual is a historic concern, because even if you believe today’s prime minister is beyond reproach, he will not remain in power forever. What happens tomorrow, when a different leader assumes the same power to conceal and reveal things from the citizenry based not on what is required by free societies, but rather on what needs to be said to keep them in power?
Photo: David Rogers/Getty Images

Email the author:

XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

• XKeyscore gives 'widest-reaching' collection of online data
• NSA analysts require no prior authorization for searches
• Sweeps up emails, social media activity and browsing history
• NSA's XKeyscore program – read one of the presentations

theguardian.com, Wednesday 31 July 2013 08.56 EDT
Jump to comments (4370)

One presentation claims the XKeyscore program covers 'nearly everything a typical user does on the internet'

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.
The latest revelations will add to the intense public and congressional debate around the extent of NSA surveillance programs. They come as senior intelligence officials testify to the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, releasing classified documents in response to the Guardian's earlier stories on bulk collection of phone records and Fisa surveillance court oversight.
The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10.
"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".
US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."
But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.
XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.
Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual's internet activity.
Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst.
One training slide illustrates the digital activity constantly being collected by XKeyscore and the analyst's ability to query the databases at any time.
KS1

The purpose of XKeyscore is to allow analysts to search the metadata as well as the content of emails and other internet activity, such as browser history, even when there is no known email account (a "selector" in NSA parlance) associated with the individual being targeted.
Analysts can also search by name, telephone number, IP address, keywords, the language in which the internet activity was conducted or the type of browser used.
One document notes that this is because "strong selection [search by email address] itself gives us only a very limited capability" because "a large amount of time spent on the web is performing actions that are anonymous."
The NSA documents assert that by 2008, 300 terrorists had been captured using intelligence from XKeyscore.
Analysts are warned that searching the full database for content will yield too many results to sift through. Instead they are advised to use the metadata also stored in the databases to narrow down what to review.
A slide entitled "plug-ins" in a December 2012 document describes the various fields of information that can be searched. It includes "every email address seen in a session by both username and domain", "every phone number seen in a session (eg address book entries or signature block)" and user activity – "the webmail and chat activity to include username, buddylist, machine specific cookies etc".

Email monitoring

In a second Guardian interview in June, Snowden elaborated on his statement about being able to read any individual's email if he had their email address. He said the claim was based in part on the email search capabilities of XKeyscore, which Snowden says he was authorized to use while working as a Booz Allen contractor for the NSA.
One top-secret document describes how the program "searches within bodies of emails, webpages and documents", including the "To, From, CC, BCC lines" and the 'Contact Us' pages on websites".
To search for emails, an analyst using XKS enters the individual's email address into a simple online search form, along with the "justification" for the search and the time period for which the emails are sought.
KS2

The analyst then selects which of those returned emails they want to read by opening them in NSA reading software.
The system is similar to the way in which NSA analysts generally can intercept the communications of anyone they select, including, as one NSA document put it, "communications that transit the United States and communications that terminate in the United States".
One document, a top secret 2010 guide describing the training received by NSA analysts for general surveillance under the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, explains that analysts can begin surveillance on anyone by clicking a few simple pull-down menus designed to provide both legal and targeting justifications. Once options on the pull-down menus are selected, their target is marked for electronic surveillance and the analyst is able to review the content of their communications:
KS4

Chats, browsing history and other internet activity

Beyond emails, the XKeyscore system allows analysts to monitor a virtually unlimited array of other internet activities, including those within social media.
An NSA tool called DNI Presenter, used to read the content of stored emails, also enables an analyst using XKeyscore to read the content of Facebook chats or private messages.
KS55edit

An analyst can monitor such Facebook chats by entering the Facebook user name and a date range into a simple search screen.
KS6

Analysts can search for internet browsing activities using a wide range of information, including search terms entered by the user or the websites viewed.
KS7

As one slide indicates, the ability to search HTTP activity by keyword permits the analyst access to what the NSA calls "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet".
KS8

The XKeyscore program also allows an analyst to learn the IP addresses of every person who visits any website the analyst specifies.
KS9

The quantity of communications accessible through programs such as XKeyscore is staggeringly large. One NSA report from 2007 estimated that there were 850bn "call events" collected and stored in the NSA databases, and close to 150bn internet records. Each day, the document says, 1-2bn records were added.
William Binney, a former NSA mathematician, said last year that the agency had "assembled on the order of 20tn transactions about US citizens with other US citizens", an estimate, he said, that "only was involving phone calls and emails". A 2010 Washington Post article reported that "every day, collection systems at the [NSA] intercept and store 1.7bn emails, phone calls and other type of communications."
The XKeyscore system is continuously collecting so much internet data that it can be stored only for short periods of time. Content remains on the system for only three to five days, while metadata is stored for 30 days. One document explains: "At some sites, the amount of data we receive per day (20+ terabytes) can only be stored for as little as 24 hours."
To solve this problem, the NSA has created a multi-tiered system that allows analysts to store "interesting" content in other databases, such as one named Pinwale which can store material for up to five years.
It is the databases of XKeyscore, one document shows, that now contain the greatest amount of communications data collected by the NSA.
KS10

In 2012, there were at least 41 billion total records collected and stored in XKeyscore for a single 30-day period.
KS11

Legal v technical restrictions
While the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008 requires an individualized warrant for the targeting of US persons, NSA analysts are permitted to intercept the communications of such individuals without a warrant if they are in contact with one of the NSA's foreign targets.
The ACLU's deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, told the Guardian last month that national security officials expressly said that a primary purpose of the new law was to enable them to collect large amounts of Americans' communications without individualized warrants.
"The government doesn't need to 'target' Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications," said Jaffer. "The government inevitably sweeps up the communications of many Americans" when targeting foreign nationals for surveillance.
An example is provided by one XKeyscore document showing an NSA target in Tehran communicating with people in Frankfurt, Amsterdam and New York.
KS12

In recent years, the NSA has attempted to segregate exclusively domestic US communications in separate databases. But even NSA documents acknowledge that such efforts are imperfect, as even purely domestic communications can travel on foreign systems, and NSA tools are sometimes unable to identify the national origins of communications.
Moreover, all communications between Americans and someone on foreign soil are included in the same databases as foreign-to-foreign communications, making them readily searchable without warrants.
Some searches conducted by NSA analysts are periodically reviewed by their supervisors within the NSA. "It's very rare to be questioned on our searches," Snowden told the Guardian in June, "and even when we are, it's usually along the lines of: 'let's bulk up the justification'."
In a letter this week to senator Ron Wyden, director of national intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that NSA analysts have exceeded even legal limits as interpreted by the NSA in domestic surveillance.
Acknowledging what he called "a number of compliance problems", Clapper attributed them to "human error" or "highly sophisticated technology issues" rather than "bad faith".
However, Wyden said on the Senate floor on Tuesday: "These violations are more serious than those stated by the intelligence community, and are troubling."
In a statement to the Guardian, the NSA said: "NSA's activities are focused and specifically deployed against – and only against – legitimate foreign intelligence targets in response to requirements that our leaders need for information necessary to protect our nation and its interests.
"XKeyscore is used as a part of NSA's lawful foreign signals intelligence collection system.
"Allegations of widespread, unchecked analyst access to NSA collection data are simply not true. Access to XKeyscore, as well as all of NSA's analytic tools, is limited to only those personnel who require access for their assigned tasks … In addition, there are multiple technical, manual and supervisory checks and balances within the system to prevent deliberate misuse from occurring."
"Every search by an NSA analyst is fully auditable, to ensure that they are proper and within the law.
"These types of programs allow us to collect the information that enables us to perform our missions successfully – to defend the nation and to protect US and allied troops abroad."

"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Monday, September 15, 2014

obama has started the Isaiah 17 /Psalm 83 10 Arab states agree to join US-led military campaign against Islamic State

Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and six Gulf states including rich rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar agree to join coalition to fight radical Sunni militants.

Isaiah 17 King James Version (KJV)

Psalm 83 King James Version (KJV)

The propaganda war Obama is losing