Boston police chief says feds never shared warnings about bomber

Fox News

Boston and Massachusetts law enforcement officials confirmed Thursday that federal agents left them in the dark on the growing warning signs about Tamerlan Tsarnaev in the run-up to the Boston Marathon bombing.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis, in testimony on Capitol Hill, said his officers on a joint terrorism task force were never told about an explicit warning from the Russian government or about Tsarnaev's travel to the Chechnya region last year. Davis said he would have liked to have known about that activity, and that it "absolutely" would have merited a second look at Tsarnaev.
Davis and Massachusetts homeland security official Kurt Schwartz testified that their officers were not looped in on Tsarnaev until after the bombing.
"At no time prior to the bombings did any member of the Massachusetts State Police or the fusion center have any information or knowledge about the Tsarnaev brothers," Schwartz said.
Current and former lawmakers at the committee hearing Thursday expressed disbelief at the lack of information-sharing.
"The idea that the feds have this information and it's not shared with the state and locals defies why we create the Department of Homeland Security in the first place," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Former Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a witness at Thursday's hearing, called the failure to tell Boston police about the brothers "a serious and aggravating omission."
"This may be one of the most significant and painful takeaway lessons," he said.
Officials continue to question what warning signs were missed about the Tsarnaev brothers. Attention has been drawn to a 2011 warning from the Russian government to the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The FBI has revealed it was told Tsarnaev was a "follower of radical Islam" and was preparing to travel overseas. The FBI says it interviewed Tsarnaev and found no evidence of terrorist involvement.
Tsarnaev ended up traveling to Russia for six months in early 2012.
Even in the federal government, information may not have traveled across all relevant agencies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said the government's internal system "pinged" when Tsarnaev left the country in 2012, though a Republican senator has said the FBI claimed they were not aware of that trip.
Davis said Thursday his department was not told of any of those developments, and repeatedly said he would have liked to know.
"We were not aware of Tamerlan's activities," he said. Davis said he can't say he would have reached a different conclusion than the FBI, but the developments would have prompted another look.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/boston-police-chief-says-feds-never-shared-warnings-about-bomber/#ixzz2Sp4VVs5X

Top Secret CIA Bank Robbing Operation

TheYoungTurks

Did failure to share intel contribute to Boston attack?

Homeland Security Has Not Issued Terror Alert After Boston Marathon Bombing

breitbart

Obama, Napolitano

By Matthew Boyle

The Department of Homeland Security has not issued a terror alert in response to Monday's bombings in Boston. On the Department of Homeland Security’s National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) website, the administration says: “There are no current alerts.”

According to a source with knowledge of these matters, a terror alert "gives authority for full mobilization of law enforcement resources to feds, state and locals.” The source told Breitbart News that the administration is supposed to issue such an alert out of the National Counterterrorism Center, via NTAS, but no such alert has been issued after the bombings in Massachusetts.

Describing the NTAS on a Frequently Asked Question page, the Department of Homeland Security says:

When there is credible information about a threat, an NTAS Alert will be shared with the American public. It may include specific information, if available, about the nature of the threat, including the geographic region, mode of transportation, or critical infrastructure potentially affected by the threat, as well as steps that individuals and communities can take to protect themselves and help prevent, mitigate or respond to the threat.

When she announced the new NTAS system’s development in a January 2011 speech, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the system would issue alerts providing Americans with as much information as possible about a terrorist attack as soon as possible.

“When we have information about a specific, credible threat, we will issue a formal alert providing as much information as we can,” Napolitano said then, according to CNN. “The alerts will be specific to the threat. They may recommend certain actions or suggest looking for specific suspicious behavior. And they will have a specified end date.”

The NTAS system officially replaced the George W. Bush administration’s color-coded threat system on April 26, 2011, a few months after that Napolitano speech praising the then-forthcoming program. NTAS is only supposed to be used in issues when there is a domestic threat, so this system would not have applied during the Benghazi terrorist attack. Barring any instances that may or may not have been solved behind-the-scenes without a public incident, the bombing at the Boston Marathon would be the first time since the NTAS system took over that it would apply.

At his evening press conference discussing the matter, President Barack Obama did not call the attack terrorism. But shortly thereafter, a White House official did release a statement clarifying that the White House believes this was an "act of terror."

“Any event with multiple explosive devices -- as this appears to be -- is clearly an act of terror, and will be approached as an act of terror,” a senior White House official said, according to Politico.

The alert, Breitbart News’s source said, is a “signal for a state of readiness and alertness.” Such an alert, he said, would help the feds step up to take over and would allow America’s “major cities to step up security at a uniform level.”

The FBI did not take over the investigation until well into Monday evening, something that may or may not have happened sooner had DHS actually employed the system it created for itself in this type of situation.

Several hours after the bombing, around 8:30 PM Monday, DHS circulated a statement from Napolitano to media outlets including Breitbart News, pledging that “[f]ederal, state, and local law enforcement agencies continue to respond, and at the President’s direction, the Department of Homeland Security is providing any support necessary in this ongoing investigation.”

When Napolitano’s statement was issued, DHS had still not sent out any alert via the NTAS system. As of this article’s publication, no alerts have been sent out.

Reached by telephone Monday evening, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman would not comment on the administration’s decision to not issue a terror alert. She referred Breitbart News to the email hotline, and a subsequent request for further comment has gone thus far unanswered.

Did documentary reveal US security secrets?

Former administration insider skewers Obama national security team

Fox News

By James Rosen

An administration riven with infighting. A commander-in-chief given to "dithering" on critical wartime decisions. A suspicious and devious White House staff erecting a "Berlin Wall" around a secluded and standoffish president, shielding him from those advisers -- particularly at the Department of State -- willing to convey unpleasant truths.
It all sounds rather like the sensational literature that proliferated in the mid-to-late 1970s to chronicle the collapsed presidency of Richard Nixon -- including the description of a White House "Berlin Wall," originally applied, with great fanfare, to those much-maligned (and eventually imprisoned) Nixon aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman.
Instead, it is President Obama's turn to watch as former aides and journalists rush into print -- with a warp speed that eluded the insider memoirists of the 1970s -- their detailed and dishy accounts of the first Obama term.
A forthcoming book by former foreign policy aide Vali Nasr paints the above portrait, describing a president whose decisions "from start to finish were guided by politics."
Nasr was a rising academic star, one of the leading scholarly voices on Iran and the Mideast, when the late Richard Holbrooke tapped him, at the dawn of the Obama administration, to join Holbrooke at a newly created office of the State Department: SRAP, short for Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

'The president had a truly disturbing habit of funneling major foreign-policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisors whose turf was strictly politics.'

- Vali Nasr, former foreign policy aide

The voluble, outsized Holbrooke, one of the most celebrated diplomats of his age, always on the short list to become secretary of state but never chosen for the job, was expected to bring his formidable talents -- and ego -- to bear on the problem of integrating more fully the often contradictory policies applied to the two nations so central to U.S. counterterrorism and national security.
But by the time he died from a ruptured aorta, in December 2010, Holbrooke had been systematically marginalized by the Obama White House, Vasr writes. Due out next month, Vasr's book "The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat" (Doubleday) depicts Holbrooke and his boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, waging an often unsuccessful battle to pierce the "Berlin Wall" and present their views to the president. The book charges that White House aides used targeted leaks and other means to "undermine" Holbrooke -- and worked hard to cut Clinton out of critical policymaking, too.
"Those in Obama's inner circle, veterans of his election campaign, were suspicious of Clinton," Nasr writes in an excerpt published on ForeignPolicy.com. "Even after Clinton proved she was a team player, they remained concerned about her popularity and feared that she could overshadow the president. ... Had it not been for Clinton's tenacity and the respect she commanded, the State Department would have had no influence on policymaking whatsoever."
State Department spokesmen pushed back hard against Nasr's charges. "We have an excellent working relationship with our White House and interagency colleagues," Patrick Ventrell told reporters at the March 4 press briefing. "So we really stand behind the record of the progress we've made in Afghanistan."
Ventrell's boss, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said at the March 8 briefing that she "would reject ... completely" the notion that Holbrooke had been sidelined by the National Security Council. "If you know Richard Holbrooke at all," she told reporters, "you know that he was a formidable force in that job, as he had been in all previous jobs."
Perhaps most arresting, however, is Nasr's portrayal of President Obama. The commander-in-chief is depicted here as "dithering" on key Afghan war decisions, tasking national security aides with the same questions, rephrased in minor ways, over and over. Nasr also casts Obama as quick to abandon foreign policy promises made on the campaign trail and too reliant on individuals unqualified to weigh in on foreign policy.
"The president had a truly disturbing habit," Nasr writes, "of funneling major foreign-policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics. ... His actions from start to finish were guided by politics. ... It was no surprise that our AfPak policy took one step forward and two steps back."
Donald Camp, a retired Foreign Service officer who served under three presidents, worked on AfPak policy as both the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia and as senior director for that region on the Obama National Security Council. Camp told Fox News that the excerpts from Nasr's book appear to show that the author was perhaps unduly colored by the experiences of his boss, Holbrooke.
"President Obama is very much -- was very much involved in those days in making Afghanistan and Pakistan policy," Camp said in an interview this month. "And I believe that he sought out all views; and there were differing views in the interagency (process), and he made the final decision."
Camp took specific issue with Nasr's allegation that then-National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones improperly offered Pakistan a civilian nuclear deal, similar to the kind that the U.S. negotiated with India over several years, in exchange for Islamabad escalating its counter-terrorism efforts. Camp said he traveled with Jones to Islamabad, and that the general knew better than to imagine such a deal could pass muster with the U.S. Congress. "It was just not in the cards," Camp told Fox News, "and James Jones would not have made that kind of proposal."
Jones did not respond to requests for comment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/12/former-administration-insider-skewers-obama-national-security-team/#ixzz2NREYikff

Cybersecurity threatens US-China relationship, White House official says

usnews

Growing Chinese Telecoms Threaten

By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News

Chinese leaders must address cybersecurity threats emanating from their country on “an unprecedented scale” or risk weakening the economic relationship between Beijing and the United States, White House national security adviser Tom Donilon said Monday.

“U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyberintrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale,” said Donilon.  “The international community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country.”

The remarks, delivered to The Asia Society in New York, are the first by a White House official to specifically name China as a threat to U.S. cybersecurity.

Though Donilon focused mainly on the danger to U.S. businesses, he did acknowledge the risk such an attack could pose to U.S. national security.  He said that the issue has become “a key point of concern and discussion with China at all levels of our governments” and that President Barack Obama has vowed to do what is necessary to protect America’s interests against cyberattacks.  

During last month’s State of the Union address, Obama highlighted how vulnerable America’s financial institutions, power grid and air traffic control systems could be to an attack.  The president, who has signed an executive order to help address those concerns, called on Congress to pass comprehensive legislation that would better secure online networks to help protect against attacks.

The president never mentioned China during his high-profile address.

But on Monday, Donilon was much more direct, detailing three requests for Beijing, including recognition of the severity of the problem, “serious steps” to address it and establishing guidelines of acceptable norms in the digital realm.   

“Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to innovation and economic growth,” said Donilon.

James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Donilon’s remarks indicate an aggressive shift in how the administration deals with China. It is a pivot, Lewis said, that comes as more and more data pours in pointing to China as the biggest culprit behind cyberattacks.

“The atmosphere has just changed; the data is overwhelming,” he said.

Lewis said protecting digital institutions is more diplomatically framed as an economic issue instead of a security one to avoid stirring threats of military action. Still it is significant the debut of the administration’s sterner policy came from the president’s top security adviser, he said.   

A report released in February by a private security firm found a Chinese military unit hacked more than 140 businesses, mostly inside the United States.  It’s a claim the Chinese government denies.

Media giants The New York Times and Wall Street Journal say they had been hacked for months and through an investigation with the FBI, traced the intrusions back to China.  The Wall Street Journal said the hacking was aimed at monitoring the newspaper’s China reporting, a claim that the spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry called “irresponsible.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney said cybersecurity will be one of the priorities the president addresses with congressional leaders when he visits Capitol Hill this week.

And the United States is not alone. European countries have suspected China has infiltrated their computer systems as well.  Nations could retaliate with sanctions against Beijing.

“It’s become a problem that China can’t ignore without harming their economy,” said Lewis.

The American left and national security

DHS Insider: Obama’s cyber warriors & preparing for collapse

canadafreepress

www.theatlantic.com

By Doug Hagmann

The following information was provided to me by my DHS contact on two different occasions. Information from my first contact was previously published in two parts (here and here). I was asked to withhold the final portion of the information that was provided to me at that time until after the inauguration. The following resumes where part II left off. At the request of this source and for the sake of continuity, the following combines the information withheld and the information from our most recent contact on 4 February 2013.

DH: Do I have your permission to record this conversation?

RB: Please do.

DH: We’ve spoken at different times since the information you gave me was published. You have since given me additional information on top of the information you asked me to withhold until after the inauguration. First, what was the reason for asking me to wait to publish the remainder of our discussion until after the inauguration?

RB: This bunch, top level DHS brass, is clamping down on leaks. One way they are finding leakers is to put out false information specific to certain individuals. They can trace the information directly to the leaker due to the nature and specificity of the information. It was part self-preservation, part vetting one of my closest and most important contacts. It was a test to assure that I am not being used for disinformation purposes or being targeted as a leaker. It was something I felt I had to do, and I’m glad I did. I feel more comfortable now about my sources.

DH: So, if I understand you correctly, your sources “passed” whatever test you were performing?

RB: Yes.

DH: And you still have access to information, I mean, whistleblower type information?

RB: I know what you mean, so I guess that’s one way to put it. Okay.

DH: For continuity and to refresh your memory, I’m going to play the remainder of our recorded interview from our contact last month.

[At this point, we listened to the dialogue previously recorded. After the recording concluded, this DHS source suggested that we combine new information with the previously recorded information to avoid unnecessary repetition. It was agreed and the recorder was turned back on with his consent].

DH: Just to be clear, let me hit this again. The main reason you asked me to wait to publish your previous statements had more to do with you, your sources and well, your own self preservation than the content of our discussion.

RB: I guess you could say that. But the information is still valid and becomes even more important when combined with the latest information I have for you.

DH: Okay, we can get on with it, then.

RB: First of all, two days after the inauguration, at exactly 7:00 a.m. on January 23, something called “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project” was activated. I heard about this the week after the election, but only saw a hardcopy draft in late December. From what I was told, I believe this is a project that is being paid for through funds from Obama’s political corporation, the 501(c)4 Organizing for Obama, I believe it’s called. I can’t be sure, but that’s what I was told.

At that time, I was shown a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logo imprinted on the outside of the binder with the name “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside were the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or “warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” From a separate sheet I was shown, most of these “assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, but as I understand it, they work from home and have no overhead. I believe there are about two dozen supervisors who make substantially more.

Now I only had the binder for a minute, and could not take it from the room I was in, so this is strictly from memory.

It was tabbed, and one section with the word “targets” had a list of religious web sites, web sites I recognized as Christian. Another section was a listing of conservative Internet sites. There was another tab with the label “problem sites” that seemed quite extensive. I looked at that section, and it was broken down further into “birther” sites, “pro-gun” sites, “anti-abortion” sites, just to name a few.

There was also a section of the usual news sites, like CNN, ABC, you know. Numerous e-mail addresses were conspicuous under each news organization, which also included Fox… [unintelligible]. I figured you were going to ask.

The first page of the binder had bullet points labeled “objectives” and instructions for the cyber-assets. There was also a very detailed non-disclosure agreement with the word “DRAFT” typed in big, light grey letters across the body of the two-page agreement. The agreement and the instructions were typed on white paper with a warning, printed in red on each page, that the document was not to be copied or disseminated.

DH: Where did you see this? I mean, was it at DHS?

RB: Yes, and that’s as much as I can say on the location.

DH: What’s the magic behind the number 3,575?

RB: I asked the person showing me [the binder] that question. Supposedly, it has to do with their budget, or the project funding.

DH: Go on.

RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.

There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.

Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.

It was surreal, to say the least.

Oh, one more thing that’s important. As I said, these “kids,” or young people I believe, are known collectively as “Cyber-Warriors for Obama.” The subheading was “And the truth shall set you free.” Truth? Really? They were hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.

There were also motivational statements on various pages, including one that referred to Obama as the “Pharaoh of the Internet,” which I thought was an odd characterization.

But what’s important is that suddenly, through the use of Internet aliases, multiple e-mail addresses, and screen names, a project that employs 3,575 people will have the appearance and effectiveness of maybe 10,000 or more different people.

DH: Do you know if these “team members” have their own copies of the binder you saw?

RB: No. I was told that these people were hired through the campaign offices located throughout the country, and that training meetings were held at various locations. The binders were for instructional purposes, not to hand out. Although I think the people have, or were given, a list of web sites.

I don’t know any more on the actual mechanics of the project.

DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?

RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.

DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?

RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.

DH: And you are getting this from your current intelligence sources? Frankly, I’m not sure I completely understand the connection between DHS and what’s going on with the economy. Seems like it should be separate.

RB: What’s not to understand? The economic devastation that will take place is an attack, a planned attack on the U.S. Just look at it that way. This “regime” already knows the outcome, which is the debasement of our national currency. Like I said, it’s been in the works most recently since the 1990s. A collapse does not happen without a lot of pain -people losing everything in their retirement accounts, savings and so on. Don’t you think that will cause one hell of a national security problem? And who is running our national or domestic security? DHS.

Oh, and one of the reasons I wanted to include more recent information into our discussion relates to something you did last month, after our talk. I know you said you did not want to source your own work, but there was one important radio program you did that caused a very angry response inside DHS.

DH: How so?

RB: You had a financial insider on your program who went by some letter, like the first or last letter of his name.

DH: Yes, that was “V” who is a source for Steve Quayle. We did a program at the beginning of January, I think - I’d have to look. [Edited to add that the actual program was 11 January 2013.]

RB: Yeah, that was it. If you ask your network, I think you’ll find a request was made for the transcript of that program by DHS. The information given by that source was protected, or confidential, especially regarding the actions of big bankers here in the U.S. and the foreign markets. These international bankers are playing a big role in killing the U.S., and although they’re bold, they still don’t want certain things disclosed before their time.

DH: But that information had nothing to do with national security. I mean, how would this relate to DHS?

RB: Now you’re giving me a headache [laughter]. Let me spell it out for you, and this is the crux of everything. We have Obama (or whatever his real name is) in the Oval Office. You’ve said it before, that America is a “captured operation.” Well, it is, and every top level operative at DHS and Justice knows it. They have his dossier.

Think about Obama’s mother working in microfinance with Timothy Geithner’s father. What are the odds? And that’s just one “coincidence.”

A lot of people won’t get this until it’s too late, or maybe never get it. But take a good look at Obama and the people who surround him. Look at the 2008 economic crisis under Bush. Look at the run up to where we’re at today. The orchestrated boom of the 1990s. The GLB Act signed into law under Clinton that changed the complexion of our domestic economy. Look at the people who are still around, the architects of this. It’s a big lie! It’s all been rigged, and the insiders know this! Look at the continuity of agenda since “Bush senior.”

Now listen to what I am telling you. This is a continuing operation that involves many of the same people on both sides of the aisle in Washington. This is one of the reasons why no one wants to talk about Obama’s past. He is the product of a continuing intelligence operation, put in power to oversee the dismantling of the U.S., with the economy being the lynchpin of our destruction. Obama, Jarrett, and the Clintons are in constant contact with all high level operatives inside the DHS. Perhaps not directly in all cases but through their contacts. They are working together to see to it that the U.S. economy is brought down, robbing the people of their wealth and then blaming partisan politics for the crash.

For the first time in recent history, you’re going to see people hungry and out in the streets. Those unprepared or those thinking this is all [expletive deleted], desperate and begging for food. Think Katrina, but on a national scale. That’s what is being planned for Americans, and few people are willing to see what’s happening, or willing to believe it. Now here’s where DHS, my sources and information comes in.

Everybody is looking at the gun “problem” in America. Fights over the Second Amendment. State laws that go against the Constitution. Blame it on Sandy Hook or Colorado. Tell people we need to be disarmed because it’s for the children. It’s all [expletive deleted]. Most people know it’s all [expletive deleted], but that’s where their rational assessment stops. Why do you think the people in power want to -no - need to disarm the public? It’s because they are planning an economic collapse, and an armed and informed populace is a danger to their plan.

DH: Wait, wouldn’t it make sense to let the guns stay in the hands of the people and have the people shoot it out among themselves? Wouldn’t this fit in with their desire for chaos, and make it easier for Martial Law to be implemented?

RB: In a way, but you’re still not thinking big enough. The way this is being planned includes that scenario, but they are very afraid that once total chaos breaks out, they will become the targets. So to a point you’re right, but then a crackdown must take place.

DH: But the elected ones are well protected.

RB: Yeah, but you are not thinking like them. There are several scenarios or models they have commissioned. They exist in printed form and have been given to Obama and Jarrett specifically. It’s war gaming with the American people. That caused some mid-level military people with a conscience to ask what the hell is going on, and some even refused to take part in these exercises. By the way, Napolitano is the go-to person for these models.

Anyway, there is a fear that their own people won’t be loyal to them when everything begins to implode. You’ve been seeing purges lately. Remember what Jarrett supposedly said about being “hell to pay” after the re-election? That process has started.

DH: Those who have been “purged” - why haven’t we seen anyone speak out about what’s going on?

RB: They’ve been threatened. Some were not worth even being threatened and became “examples.”

DH: Like who?

RB: Oh c’mon, look at the recent mysterious deaths. Pick one.

DH: Okay, but wouldn’t they be safer by speaking out, by telling everything they know? Some ordinary people might call them cowards. Why not just go public[interrupted/over talk]

RB: Yeah, how’d that work out so far? And go public to who? CNN? They are in real danger, and so are their families. Anyone close to them. Even if one or two would go public, how do you think that would work out for them? I’ll tell you how. They would make [Senator] McCarthy look like an American hero, which he was, but that’s… They’ve made it so that no one will be able to make any real difference to their agenda. They know that.

DH: So no one is going to say anything - ever?

RB: That’s not what I said. Some will talk when the time is right. Some have “insurance policies” that will be used at the right time, when they will make the most difference.

DH: I feel like we’re getting off point. So, what is being planned?

RB: The DHS will oversee the domestic crackdown that will happen when the perfect storm bears down on us. And the perfect storm is the economy, meaning the U.S. dollar collapse and hyperinflation, racial or class riots sparked by a high-profile incident, and another mass causality event involving guns. Watch for these three things to happen all at once, or in close succession.

The polarization caused by these events will be sufficient to cause a second civil war.

DH: When? How soon will all of this happen?

RB: I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have seen various reports referencing unprecedented “drills” to take place in later March and April. I’ll mention this because I know a lot of people on the inside at DHS have seen this. A document called “Operation Thunderdome.” It’s maybe 50 or 60 pages, I’m not certain. It describes an economic collapse in the U.S., followed by an attack on the government by “a made-up patriotic group.” It combines gun owners, Constitutionalists, and even Christians into an enemy group that pulls off an attack in Washington.

But don’t fall into the trap of trying to pick the time of these events. Their plans are flexible, but their objectives are carved in stone.

DH: Sounds like a Reichstag type event- sometime.

RB: Exactly. Maybe not just one. They have plans and back-up plans and back-ups for the back-ups. And in spite of the warnings, and history, enough people will be outraged and side with the government. This brings me to my final point. What do you think all of the prepositioning of paramilitary assets, caches of ammunition, and the opening of non-descript buildings owned or leased by the federal government are for?

It’s for you and people like you. It’s for those who are turned in by their neighbors, friends, co-workers, and others who are hungry, broke and broken. What we are about to experience will be like it was during the Civil War, only worse. People will be outgunned, surveillance will be everywhere, and it will be much more difficult to hide and fight back. Not impossible, but more difficult.

DH: So you’re painting a picture of a Mad Max scenario, hence the reference to Thunderdome?

RB: Believe it or not, part of the model, or at least one of them, includes the depiction of a somewhat “normal” society, at least after the initial “hostilities.” People will be controlled by the national government, centralized - in order to escape the chaos. Think of it this way. You want food and medical care? You will not be able to own a gun, period. The current federal legislation is all window dressing - a distraction. No one expects anything meaningful to pass. It won’t have to. States, yes, but those states are lining up for federal money. The elected leaders are of the same ideology as Obama, but aside from those, we’ll see many people turning in their weapons for food, shelter, medical care, and false guarantees of safety. That’s what the new normal will look like.

As I said, you’ve got to think bigger - much bigger. The lies are bigger than most people can imagine. The people at the top are laughing at us. Think about that. They are laughing at us because it’s right in front of our noses. And you know, the bigger the lie…

DH: Yes, the more people will fall for it.

RB: Right. I think we’re done here for now. I’ve given you as much information as I know, as I have seen. Watch the economy - the indicators. Watch for a false flag. We are being baited. Let people pooh-pooh this information, seek information through FOI requests. Not gonna happen. We’re talking about an operation so black and so big, and one that has to be done in the next few years, under Obama.

This is something that is international in scope. The plan is international, and is dedicated to the dismantling or destruction of America. It’s happening right in front of us, but too few can actually see it.

DH: I’m sure you, well… We’ll be accused of scaring people without citable evidence.

RB: People need to wake up. Believe me or don’t. It’s their choice.

DH: Wait, one more thing. What should we be looking for next?

RB: Look around. You’re seeing it. We’ll talk again. Please shut off the recorder.

Justice Dept. memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

openchannel

By Michael Isikoff National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.  

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.    

Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Read the entire 'white paper' on drone strikes on Americans

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.” 

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration  officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s  Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News. 

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”  

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations. 

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. 

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, “It is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a  lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.  McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,”  said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March,  he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

“The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,”  he said.

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified  if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was  mentioned in the white paper. 

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as   a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It  also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

 “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

Obama Closing Air Defense System on U.S./Mexico Border: America More Vulnerable to Low Altitude Attack

New Zeal Blog

By David Bellow of Texas GOP Vote

Air Force’s Air Defense Radar Systems along U.S./Mexico Border will SHUTDOWN on March 15th, 2013

On January 17th, 2013, Exelis Systems Corporation sent out an email (see email below) to all of its employees informing them that on March 15th, 2013 all TARS Air Defense Mission Operations will permanently cease. These TARS Air Defense sites were under the control of the United States Air Force. On January 15th, 2013, the Air Force informed Exelis (the defense contractor running the TARS sites) that the TARS sites will be shut down. Exelis tried to then negotiate with the Department of Homeland Security to see if they would take over the vital project, but it seems as though those negotiations have failed. What does this mean?

This means the southern border of the United States of America will be more vulnerable to attack from low flying aircraft, low altitude missiles, and other infiltrations such as smuggling.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one Exelis employee had this to say about the announced closure of the TARS sites:

“Not only will this closure mean hundreds of people will be out of jobs, but it also means our borders will not be safe, especially along the remote U.S. Mexico Border like in Texas. These defense radars detect low flying aircraft infiltrating our borders. Without these defense radars, low flying aircraft will go undetected. It will be open season for any drug/gun/slave smugglers, terrorists flying in with nukes, low altitude missiles, or even a full scale low elevation invasion/attack against America.”

According to the Air Force’s website, the Tethered Aerostat Radar System, or TARS, is an aerostat-borne, surveillance program. Using the aerostat as a stationary airborne platform for a surveillance radar, the system is capable of detecting low altitude aircraft at the radar’s maximum range by mitigating curvature of the earth and terrain masking limitations. TARS provides a detection and monitoring capability along the United States-Mexico border, the Florida Straits, and a portion of the Caribbean in support of the Department of Defense Counterdrug Program.

The primary agencies using the TARS surveillance data include U.S. Northern Command in support of Customs and Border Protection (Air and Marine Operations Center and Caribbean Air and Marine Operations Center) and U.S. Southern Command in support of Joint Interagency Task Force-South. In addition to its counterdrug mission, TARS surveillance data also supports North American Aerospace Defense Command’s air sovereignty mission for the continental United States.

Email Sent to all Exelis Employees January 17th, 2013 Announcing Closure of TARS Air Defense Sites:

Subject: TARS Contract Update
Tuesday, 15 January 2013, we received a government request for a proposal (RfP) to de-scope and close the TARS program by the end of the fiscal year. The government indicated that it does not intend to exercise the final two option years for the TARS contract. In the RfP, the government also indicated its intent that aerostat flight operations will cease on March 15, 2013, and that the remainder of the fiscal year will be used to deflate aerostats, disposition equipment, and prepare sites for permanent closure. We are currently reviewing all the details of the RfP and evaluating the possible impacts on the program and our workforce. We continue to communicate with the government on this matter, and we will have more information in the coming days and weeks.
The TARS program provides a critical capability to the U.S. government and we should remain focused on providing that service in an uninterrupted and robust manner.
The best thing we can do right now is to continue to provide the outstanding TARS support that has become the Exelis hallmark, while allowing the company and the government time to continue discussions on how to best support the customer, the program, and our workforce. We will provide regular updates as we know more. Should you have a specific question, please address them to Tim Green, Program Manager.
Tim Green, PMP
Program Manager
Tethered Aerostat Radar System
Exelis Systems Corporation

If Communist Party “friend” President Barack Obama, were deliberately trying to make America more vulnerable to enemy attack, what would he be doing differently than he is today?

ObamaLeaks in the White House

paracom

White House/Pete Souza

President Barack Obama talks with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon before a phone call with President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt, aboard Air Force One during the flight from Phnom Penh, Cambodia, to Washington, D.C., Nov. 20, 2012.

Marc A. Thiessen | The Washington Post

After highly classified details of a U.S. cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear program were made public, President Obama went to the White House press room to denounce those who suggested the leaks were coming from his top national security aides. “The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive [and] it is wrong,” the president declared.

Well, the Federal Bureau of Investigation may disagree. The Post broke the news Sunday that the FBI has launched an “aggressive” investigation into “current and former senior officials suspected of involvement” in the leak that Obama personally ordered cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear program using a computer virus called Stuxnet. The New York Times story which first revealed the details of the cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear program cited as sources “members of the president’s national security team who were in the [Situation Room]” and even quoted the president asking during a top secret meeting: “Should we shut this thing down?” Only Obama’s most trusted national security advisers would have been present when he uttered those words.

Now several members of that inner circle are receiving promotions. Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough has just been named the new White House chief of staff. And John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser, has been nominated to be next director of the CIA. With the investigation reaching the top echelons of the administration, it is time for the White House to come clean and tell the American people which of Obama’s senior advisers is under investigation. There are no confirmation hearings for the chief of staff post, but Brennan will soon appear before the Senate on Feb. 7 for his confirmation hearings. If confirmed, he will be responsible for protecting our nation’s secrets. Congress has a right to know what he knows — and if he is being questioned by the FBI in the leak probe.

And the Stuxnet inquiry is only the beginning. The Justice Department is also investigating the disclosure of the role played by a double agent, recruited in London by British intelligence, in breaking up a new underwear bomb plot in Yemen. How far up the chain of command has that investigation gone? And how about the disclosure of classified details of the CIA drone campaign, including the fact that Obama personally selects the names on a terrorist “kill list”? Or leak to the New York Times of classified details of yet another covert operation in which “C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government”? Or the revelation last summer that the U.S. was considering launching secret joint U.S.-Afghan commando raids into Pakistan against the Haqqani network? Or the disclosure of classified operational details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden — which prompted then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to visit Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in the West Wing and advise the White House to “Shut the [expletive] up”?
"Taken together, these are not leaks — they are a flood." -Marc A. ThiessenTaken together, these are not leaks — they are a flood. Indeed, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper declared last year that the torrent of disclosures is the worst he has seen in his 30-year intelligence career. Also last year, Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “I’ve been on the Intelligence Committee for 11 years, and I have never seen it worse.” At the time, she traced the leaks right back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., declaring “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. I don’t know specifically where. But I think they have to begin to understand that, and do something about it.”

Now it appears the FBI is doing something about it.

Amazingly, an official cited in The Post story actually complained about the “chilling effect in government due to these investigations” which has people “feeling less open to talking to reporters.”

Good! It’s about time something got this administration to finally “shut the [expletive] up.”

The officials behind ObamaLeaks have made WikiLeaks look like rank amateurs — exposing intelligence sources and methods on a scale Julian Assange can only dream about. Those responsible need to be held to account — even if they have a seat in the Situation Room next to the president.

Canadian Feds' privacy measures outdated: expert

GlobalToronto

Latin America security by the numbers

Just the Facts

iiss.org

By Adam Isacson

• Venezuela gave Nicaragua US$2.56 billion in assistance, much of it oil or energy related, between 2007 and the first half of 2012.
  
• “In 2010, Brazil spent more than US$350 million on 14 Israeli-made Heron UAVs for surveillance of the Amazon rainforest and border regions,” reports John Otis in GlobalPost.
  
• Mexico’s Milenio newspaper, which keeps a count of organized crime-related homicides, counted 12,394 such murders in 2012. This is up slightly from 12,284 in 2011 and down from 12,658 in 2010. The newspaper counted 54,069 organized crime-related homicides during the six years when recently departed President Felipe Calderón intensified Mexico’s fight against trafficking organizations.
  
• In a six-day span between January 3 and January 8, Colombian guerrillas, probably the ELN, bombed the Caño Limón-Coveñas oil pipeline twice in Norte de Santander department.
  
• El Salvador’s coroner’s office recorded 2,641 homicides in 2012, 39% lower than the 4,360 homicides it counted in 2011. The office also recorded a drop in forced disappearances after a March 2012 pact between the country’s principal street gangs (maras).
  
• Guatemala counted 5,174 homicides in 2012, down 8.9 percent from 2011. It was the third straight year in which homicides fell.
  
• Colombia’s police counted 14,670 homicides in 2012, the lowest number in 27 years, for a homicide rate of 31 per 100,000 people, down from 70 per 100,000 ten years ago.
  
• Colombia’s Defense Ministry estimated that the FARC guerrillas now have less than 8,000 members, and the ELN guerrillas have less than 1,500 members.
  
• Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, recorded 750 homicides in 2012, down from 2,086 in 2011 and 3,116 in 2010.
  
• Demobilized paramilitary members participating in Colombia’s “Justice and Peace” process have confessed to committing 1,064 massacres, over 25,000 homicides and 3,599 forced disappearances.
  
• Mexican military courts have convicted 16,460 soldiers for the crime of desertion since 2006.
  
• Peru’s Interior Ministry has set aside US$32.5 million to improve police presence in the Apurímac, Ene and Mantaro Valley (VRAEM) region in Ayacucho department, which is dominated by remnants of the Shining Path guerrilla movement.

Karzai: US, NATO behind ’insecurity’ in Afghanistan

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read >>

Also 

Analysis: How Afghanistan
has changed under Karzai

Obama’s memo on “insider threats”

CFP/ Doug Hagmann

theulstermanreport.com

On the day before Thanksgiving, Barack Hussein Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum, or an unofficial directive to the heads of departments and agencies under the executive branch. This Presidential Memorandum, the text of which is only 183 words, directs agency and department heads to establish a program “to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security.”

Much like all of Obama’s other directives, Executive Orders and findings, there is a disturbing level of ambiguity contained within this memorandum. One could correctly state that the obvious intent of this directive is to stop government employees from leaking classified information that would endanger the safety and security of our nation. While true, there appears to be a deliberate lack of specificity concerning the exact elements that constitute such an “insider threat.”

There is, however, a more important aspect to this memorandum that will be undoubtedly missed by many who report on it. It is reflected by a word that appears toward the end of the directive and should be considered the “key” to understanding the intent and action of Barack Hussein Obama. The word is “centrally,” and when it is considered in the context of Obama’s agenda we’ve seen being implemented over the last four years, it is chilling.

The key to understanding this memorandum is to understand that we are witnessing the greatest consolidation of power and control under the Executive branch of the government in recent U.S. history. This consolidation of power makes it possible for a select number of highly political “czars” and appointed officials to observe, control and report on the activities of people within their various departments to the Executive branch. This process creates a closed system of surveillance that cannot be easily penetrated by other branches of our government. More >>

The tricky nature of investigating Gen. Allen's emails

Security Clearance/ By Barbara Starr

A U.S. official familiar with the content of the e-mails Gen. John Allen sent to Jill Kelley described them as "embarrassing" and warranting the investigation that has been launched.

"They are embarrassing. If they got out, John Allen would be very embarrassed by them," according to the official, who emphasized that there is no evidence of "physical contact between the two."

The official noted that the e-mails that are under investigation - which have been called "potentially inappropriate" - are from Allen. It is Allen's e-mails that are under investigation, and the official did not know the content of any of Kelley's e-mails to Allen.

"The e-mails are concerning enough to warrant an investigation," the official said.

A second U.S. official, who has had the e-mails described to him, characterized the content as "sexy," but emphasized he could not say whether they "crossed the line."

They "are not the type of e-mails you would want your wife to read," the second official explained.

But a senior official close to Allen told CNN's Nick Paton Walsh Tuesday that there was nothing pointing or referring to sex or an affair or anything of a romantic nature. Allen may have said, informally, "thanks sweetheart" in an e-mail, the official close to Allen insisted.

"Anyone who knows him knows his style - he has a habit of replying to every single e-mail (he is sent). Kelley would e-mail his business and personal accounts," that official said.

It will be up to the Defense Department’s inspector general to decide specifically if the content of the e-mails is so inappropriate that they would be considered conduct unbecoming an officer, according to a third source, a senior U.S. official. This official pointed out this may be a very difficult matter to decide because everyone has a personal definition of what is "affectionate, admiration, all the way to what some might define as sexting."

Petraeus Affair Teaches Us About Online Surveillance

Tom Simonite

The FBI methods used to reveal the CIA director's affair are relevant to all Web users.

When the FBI started investigating harassing emails sent to a resident of Tampa Bay that organized parties for a local Air Force base, it soon became a much broader investigation that led to the uncovering of an affair between CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell. Now reports of how the FBI uncovered a series of online email accounts and figured out who was using them have revealed things about digital surveillance that will surprise many Web users, and even tidbits that have impressed experts. Here are five things we’ve learned so far:

• No judge-issued warrant is needed for authorities to ask a company for your emails or other electronic communication records that are six months old or more. That’s thanks to the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which says that a federal prosecutor’s subpoena is enough. Privacy activists have long campaigned for this to change. Leading civil liberties lawyer Kevin Bankston today suggested the Petraeus affair could help those efforts by raising awareness of the current law.
• Communicating by saving draft emails in an online account for someone else to log in and see – as Petraeus and Broadwell did – doesn’t help escape surveillance. This tactic long-used by activists and terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid in 2001, prevents emails lodging in personal accounts and other places. But the FBI or law enforcement can easily ask a provider to reveal the IP addresses people used to log into an account. Those IP addresses can be matched to physical locations, and to people's known addresses and movements.
• IP addresses can be used to pinpoint people very precisely, providing a crucial match between online and offline life. The WSJ reports that the FBI figured out it was Broadwell operating pseudonymous email accounts by matching IP addresses from emails they sent to particular hotels. Those matched with particular hotels and the dates she stayed in them on a book tour.
• Yahoo Mail and Microsoft’s Outlook make it extra easy for investigators to find out the IP address an email originated from – and hence where an email was sent from. When emails are sent extra data goes along with them known as “headers” containing technical data. In the case of Yahoo Mail and Outlook that includes the IP address of the connection used to send an email, so investigators don't need to subpoena a mail provider to trace its origin. It’s not known if Broadwell used Yahoo accounts in the events surrounding the Petraeus affair, but she’s known to have used the service before thanks to leaks by nebulous activist group Anonymous of account information from defense contractor Stratfor.

• Email and other services hosted online make life relatively easy for investigators. Google and other online providers have legitimate reasons to log which IP addresses log into accounts and when, for example to detect hacking attempts and keep their software running smoothly. But that data hangs around, and investigators aren't shy about asking for it. Google today published new figures on government requests for its data that show U.S. authorities tapped the company 26 percent more in the first half of 2012 than they did in the second half of 2011, a total of 7969 requests of which 90 percent were complied with.

Who will replace Petraeus atop the CIA?

Security Clearence
By CNN Senior National Security Producer Pam Benson

So who might be the replacement for David Petraeus? The rumor mill was in full swing Friday after the CIA director stepped down, saying he had an extramarital affair.

One person being discussed is Michael Morell, the now acting CIA director, who could be named to the position permanently.

President Barack Obama thinks highly of Morell, several U.S. officials told CNN's Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin.

In his statement on the resignation of Petraeus, Obama expressed the "utmost confidence" in Morell continuing the work of the CIA.

Also: Petraeus stand-in has been through this before

Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein also expressed support of Morell, saying "the agency is in very good hands until the president selects a replacement."

But at the top could very well be John Brennan, the president's powerful adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security.

 

Brennan has shaped the White House's strategy to aggressively pursue suspected terrorists, dramatically escalating the use of armed unmanned aircraft to kill them in the ungoverned territories of Pakistan and in Yemen. Small teams of special operations forces have been deployed to critical locations. And Brennan is said to have the complete trust of Obama.

What could hold him back is exactly why he pulled out of contention for the CIA director's position in 2008 when the newly elected Obama was putting together his administration. Liberal bloggers accused Brennan of supporting outgoing President George W. Bush's policy of harsh interrogation techniques.

Brennan withdrew his name from consideration in an angry letter to Obama.

"It has been immaterial to the critics that I have a been strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration such as preemptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics," Brennan wrote.

In the end, Brennan wound up with a more powerful position in the administration.

More recently, the White House has been criticized by some Republicans for leaks of sensitive information on counterterrorism operations. Brennan has called the leaks devastating and vehemently denied administration officials were involved. But the controversy could make for a difficult confirmation hearing if he is nominated.

Although many people say they think Brennan is ready to leave the administration after four years in an extremely demanding job, some who are close to him believe he still has his eyes set on the CIA job.

Another possibility for the position: Jane Harman, the former congresswoman from California who is well-respected within intelligence circles.

 

While in Congress she served as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, chaired the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, and was a member of the Armed Services Committee. Although a social liberal, Harman was seen as a moderate on intelligence and defense issues. She voted for the war in Iraq and initially supported the controversial domestic surveillance program run by the Bush administration.

Harman left Congress to run the Woodrow Wilson International Center, but still speaks out often on intelligence and foreign policy issues.

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers is another name being bandied about.

 

Vickers has spent most of his career in the military and the intelligence community. Early on, he served as an Army Green Beret and a CIA operations officer. He helped arm the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in their battle against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. His role in that operation was depicted in the 2007 movie, "Charlie Wilson's War," based on a book written by George Crile. Vickers later was named Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations.

In his current position, Vickers simultaneously serves as the director of defense intelligence in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and as the primary military liaison to the CIA. His extensive experience working with the intelligence community and special operations forces is particularly noteworthy at a time when both services are a key component of counterterrorism strategy.

Another potential candidate is Mike Leiter, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). The Harvard Law School graduate spent six years in the Navy flying missions over Bosnia and Iraq. After a stint as a federal prosecutor, Leiter served as the assistant director of a presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction, and was later named deputy chief of staff for the director of National Intelligence.

 

President George W. Bush appointed him director of NCTC, a position he continued in during the Obama administration. As director, Leiter oversaw more than 1,000 analysts charged with sifting through information gathered throughout the intelligence community in an effort to prevent terrorist attacks.

Although well-respected with strong support on Capitol Hill, Leiter did face criticism for the NCTC's failure to connect the dots when a Nigerian man tried unsuccessfully to blow up a Detroit bound airliner on Christmas Day in 2009.