FBI WATCH MAKING CRUELTY VISIBLE

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/241877 ... n-bombings
Keating presses FBI for more answers on Marathon Bombings

Dec 10, 2013



The FBI's muted response to pointed question over early warnings about one of the accused Boston Marathon bombers is drawing criticism from a Bay State Congressman that the federal government isn't sharing enough sensitive information with other law enforcement officials, a failure he says detracts from the country's ability to prevent future terror attacks.
Cong. William R. Keating, D-Bourne, told FOX Undercover he continues to be frustrated at the FBI's response to his questions about why state and local police weren't told by the FBI that Russian intelligence officials had warned US officials about Cambridge resident Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
The FBI responded to Keating's questions in a letter, which he released today to FOX Undercover. The letter answers questions Keating asked in July.
"(Information sharing) was an important piece after 9/11, and I'm not seeing any kind of formal effort to take information that's there and share it with local law enforcement," Keating told FOX Undercover reporter Mike Beaudet.
Keating sits on Congress' Committee on Homeland Security and has traveled to Russia to investigate Tsarnaev's time there and the two warnings Russia had sent about the elder Tsarnaev brother.
The FBI has said they followed up on a detailed warning from Russia issued March 4, 2011 but were ignored by the Russians. A Russian security official denied to Keating that any follow-up from the FBI had occurred. The FBI also interviewed Tsarnaev but closed the case on him.
In its response to Keating, the FBI reiterated that members of the Boston Police Department and others who are part of the Joint Terrorism Task Force have access to a computer system called Guardian which contained information about Tsarnaev and the Russian warnings .
But Keating says that's not real information sharing, and it leaves one troubling question unanswered.
"Do you think information sharing could have possibly prevented the Marathon bombings?" Beaudet asked.

[fruhmenschen]

I would hope someone will create a thread about the FBI Sensitive Informant program

Is the Huffington Post part of the FBI sensitive Informant program?

This article that appeared today in the Huffington Post looks like it was
written at FBI headquarters. Do you know anything about the founders of this online
liberal rag? In 1995 Breitbart saw the Drudge Report and was so impressed that he emailed Matt Drudge. Breitbart said, "I thought what he was doing was by far the coolest thing on the Internet. And I still do."[7] Breitbart described himself as "Matt Drudge's bitch"[13] and selected and posted links to other news wire sources. Later Matt Drudge introduced him to Arianna Huffington (when she was still a Republican)[9] and Breitbart subsequently assisted her in creating The Huffington Post.[14]


Wonder why FBI director Hoover didn't ignore Martin Luther King before the assassinated him?


two reads


1st read
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 ... 26501.html
J. Edgar Hoover Ordered FBI To Ignore Rep Who Badmouthed Him

2/11/2013

WASHINGTON -- J. Edgar Hoover ordered his bureau to ignore Rep. Jack Brooks back in 1958 after the then-36-year-old Texas Democrat reportedly badmouthed the FBI director during a standard background interview concerning a potential judicial nominee, according to Brooks' FBI file.

"He is to be ignored," Hoover handwrote in a June 1958 memo.

Brooks, who served in Congress for 42 years and was in John F. Kennedy's motorcade when the president was assassinated, died last year at the age of 89. Brooks served in Congress until the mid-1990s, when he was defeated by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) in 1994.


2nd read


see link for full story

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/bob- ... t-program/
Brother of Murder Victim Seeks Details of FBI's u2018Sensitive Informant Program'

By Bob McCarty

February 1, 2013


Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue filed a motion Monday asking a federal judge to determine whether he is entitled to limited discovery into the FBI’s u201CSensitive Informant Program.u201D

Trentadue Motion for Discovery 1-28-13 Click to download copy of motion (pdf).

In his motion, Trentadue described the program as one used by the bureau “to recruit and/or place informants on the staffs of members of the United States Congress and perhaps even federal judges, in the national media, within other federal agencies as well as the White House, on defense teams in high-profile federal and/or state criminal prosecutions, inside state and local law enforcement agencies, and even among the clergy of organized religions.”

Trentadue’s interest in the program stems from questions that have surfaced during his ongoing investigation into the death of Kenneth Trentadue, his brother who died in 1995 under suspicious circumstances while in custody at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, months after the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Kenneth-Trentadue_Pic Click to learn more at http://KennethTrentadue.com.

With his latest legal maneuver, Trentadue hopes to convince Judge Clark Waddoups to compel the FBI to provide all documentation outlining what he describes in the motion as an “unlawful and unconstitutional domestic spying program.”

The maneuver comes almost four weeks after the FBI answered a federal court complaint Trentadue filed under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of the manual the FBI uses to recruit and place u201Csensitive informants.u201D Citing national security concerns as the basis for their response, FBI officials answered that complaint by saying they u201Ccan neither confirm nor deny the allegations [of the Complaint] regarding its confidential informant program.u201D

Shown below, Trentadue’s definition of a “sensitive informant” is, perhaps, the most interesting aspect of his motion:

“…the term ‘Sensitive Informant’ is defined as anyone acting, directly or indirectly and with or without any compensation, on behalf of the FBI as a member of, person associated with or otherwise a participant in or observer of the activity or activities of an entity, organization, group, governmental agency or unit, association of organizations or individuals, public official, member of Congress, judge, cleric and/or religious or political organization AND who does not disclose or reveal to such entity, organization, group, governmental agency or unit, association of organizations or individuals, public official, member of Congress, judge, cleric and/or religious or political organization his or her FBI affiliation.

“A Sensitive Informant is, in other words, some one who is acting, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the FBI as an undisclosed participant in or observer of the activity or activities of an entity, organization, group, governmental agency or unit, association of organizations or individuals, public official, member of Congress, judge, cleric and/or religious or political organization.

“The term ‘Sensitive Informant’ likewise includes what the FBI's current terminology refers to as a ‘Confidential Human Source’ including any and all sub-categories of Confidential Human Sources such as, but not limited to, what the FBI refers to as a ‘Privileged Confidential Human Source,’ who is someone reporting confidential information to the FBI in violation of a privilege such as an attorney reporting his client's confidential communications, a physician reporting upon his patient's medical or mental condition, a cleric informing on a member of his or her church or other religious organization, etc.

In his motion, Trentadue requested the judge order FBI officials to answer 11 critical questions about the scope of their “Sensitive Informant Program” prior to a yet-to-be-scheduled hearing during which, according to Trentadue, FBI officials have said they will file a motion for summary judgment to prevent him access to the information he seeks.

Looking only for numbers of Sensitive Informants and not for specific names from the FBI, Trentadue’s questions target the time frame, “since January 1, 1995.” In short, he wants to know whether or not the agency has had Sensitive Informants inside a variety of government and non-governmental organizations.

Among the government organizations mentioned in his queries were the state and federal court systems, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, federal agencies other than the FBI, federal prosecutors’ offices, and law enforcement agencies at the municipal, county and state levels.

Among non-governmental agencies, he listed management positions inside news organizations, including but not limited to, the following: Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, PBS, Reuters or Scripps-Howard; Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and/or Washington Post; The Daily Beast, Mother Jones, The New American, Newsweek, TIME and/or U.S. News & World Report.

Curiously, he also asked whether the FBI has had a Sensitive Informant(s) who was a cleric or member of the clergy in any religious organization.

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... an-missing

Former FBI agent missing in Iran was working for the CIA – report
• Robert Levinson went missing in March 2007 in Iran
• CIA alleged to have paid £2.5m to family to prevent lawsuit
Thursday 12 December 2013 19.37 EST


Robert Levinson Robert Levinson went missing in Iran nearly six years ago. Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images

A retired FBI agent missing for seven years after disappearing in Iran was on an unauthorized mission for the CIA, according to an explosive new report on Thursday that contradicted the official explanation that he was on private business.

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/1 ... story.html
Very few shockers in John Silber’s FBI files


December 12, 2013

Background checks were done in 1983 and 1987 on John R. Silber, who was appointed to three separate commission posts during the Reagan administration.

John R. Silber led a very public life, overseeing the transformation of Boston University, nearly becoming governor of Massachusetts, and getting into so many verbal scrapes with critics that his penchant for provocative rejoinders even had a name, the “Silber shocker.”

But FBI agents who did background checks on Silber in the 1980s managed to unearth a few secrets, sort of: In 1947, for example, Silber got a B in Old Testament history and literature at Yale Divinity School, and two years later he failed a graduate course at the University of Texas at Austin.

A 516-page FBI file, compiled when Silber was appointed to three presidential panels during the Reagan administration, is packed with testimonials to the irascible Silber’s patriotism, work ethic, dedication to family, and even his legendary stubbornness. Unlike another BU luminary, Martin Luther King Jr., who was the subject of a controversial 17,000-page FBI file, Silber’s dossier is downright flattering.

“The appointee is of very, very fine character, a great scholar, very patriotic . . . and a strong supporter of national defense and this nation’s present administration,” an FBI interviewer wrote in paraphrasing the opinion of Arthur Metcalf, chairman of BU’s board of trustees, in 1983. “The only criticism [Metcalf] has concerning the appointee is the appointee’s lack of patience with ‘suffering fools.’ ”

Of course, the file suggests that agents did not speak with many Silber critics, such as leftist historian and BU faculty member Howard Zinn, who twice helped lead faculty votes that unsuccessfully attempted to oust Silber as president. Silber once called Zinn a prime example of teachers “who poison the well of academe.” About the only substantive concern the FBI raises about Silber is that he may have strong-armed BU personnel to support then-Boston Mayor Kevin White in the 1970s.

But the file, released to the Boston-based public records group MuckRock after a formal records request, provides an unusual window into what associates of Silber, who died in 2012, said about him when they could have faced serious consequences for not telling the truth.

The FBI conducted the extensive checks on Silber in 1983 and again in 1987 when President Ronald Reagan appointed Silber to three different commissions, including the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America.
FBI agents checked credit databases, arrest records, and court files from Boston to San Francisco for any derogatory information. Agents also conducted dozens of interviews with Silber’s neighbors, friends, and employees.

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story
How dumb are American voters?
This FBI Perp is still in office.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/governme ... 12-12.html

The FBI 's point man in Congress

Dec. 12, 2013
House Intelligence Committee chair discusses support for NSA spying laws
SUMMARY
President Obama has two panels reviewing NSA policy, with recommendations for possible changes expected by year's end. Margaret Warner talks to Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, for his perspective on U.S. spying laws and rebuilding trust with the American public and abroad.

MARGARET WARNER: Chairman Rogers, thanks for joining us.

REP. MIKE ROGERS, R-Mich.: Thanks for having me.

MARGARET WARNER: As you know, the president is reviewing NSA surveillance policy. Whatever changes are going to happen are coming out later this month.

If he were seeking your counsel, what is the most profound thing you think he needs to address?

MIKE ROGERS: Part of the problem with where we're at is that we're fighting perception about what people think is happening vs. what's actually happening.

And so that's been our biggest challenge on the education piece. So, I think the first round, we all want to agree that these programs have kept Americans safe. They have kept our allies safe. There are multiple levels of oversight that no other intelligence service in the world has, like the United States intelligence oversight, between the courts and the Congress and the inspector general, and then the FBI, the Department of Justice. I mean, you name it. It has it all.

So I think what we can do is have some confidence-builders for the American people to look at this and understand, ah, one person can't run off and listen your phone call or read your e-mail. None of that is happening.

MARGARET WARNER: So, are you saying the president needs to maybe bring more transparency, do exactly what's being done, who is doing it, and what the safeguards are?

MIKE ROGERS: I think that would be incredibly helpful for the president to do that.

MARGARET WARNER: But isn't there then a tension between that and how much you want to divulge or he wants to divulge?

MIKE ROGERS: Well, absolutely.

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-ask ... 28542.html

The Spies Who Never Came in From the Cold
12/16/2013
PART 1

In 1972, the FBI sent an agent from its Newark office to Morris County to investigate why a person named Paton was communicating with the Socialist Workers Party at its New York headquarters.

The information had come from a "mail cover" on the SWP's headquarters. Under the existing U.S. Postal Service regulations, a mail cover was authorized whenever a law enforcement agency certified such action was necessary to protect the national security. No judicial approval was required. The mail cover allowed the FBI to photograph the outside of any envelope directed to the addressee, including postmarks and return addresses.

In that instance, the subject of the investigation was a 15-year-old high school student who had been doing her homework. The FBI agent tracked her down at West Morris-Mendham High School. The school principal and the political science teacher explained that the student was enrolled in a course called "Left to Right," which explored the programs and workings of fringe political movements.

The agent thanked school officials for the information and left.

But the principal also notified the student's parents of the incident, and the parents contacted the American Civil Liberties Union office in Newark, which referred the matter to the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School in Newark.

When the FBI initially denied that it was investigating the student and declined to respond to a request for any copies of any documents generated as a result, a lawsuit that was to go on for seven years ensued.

The smoking gun that was to conclude the litigation occurred when plaintiffs were finally allowed to take the deposition of L. Patrick Gray, the acting director of the FBI who had requested the mail cover. Gray testified that the application he signed said the mail cover was necessary because the Socialist Workers Party was organizing protests against the war in Vietnam.

Federal District Judge Lawrence Whipple had heard enough. He recalled the mischief that had been done in the name of "national security" during the era of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and stated that "national security" is too ambiguous and broad a term where rights of free speech were involved. He ruled as follows:

National security as a basis for the mail cover is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Without any qualification or explanation of what is meant by national security, an investigation can be initiated on the assertions of an overzealous public official with the unorthodox, yet constitutionally protected political views of a group or person. It allows officials to pursue their personal predilections.

He left untouched other types of mail covers such as investigation of mail fraud or the search for fugitives.

Whipple issued an injunction forbidding future national security mail covers pending a revision of the mail cover regulation to cure the constitutional defects.

The defendants did not appeal Whipple's order, apparently deciding to comply by rewriting the regulation.

PART 2

On July 3 of this year, the New York Times ran a story under the headline "U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement."

The article recounted the recent experience of one Leslie James Pickering, the owner of a bookstore in Buffalo.

The article explained: Mr. Pickering "noticed something odd in his mail: a handwritten card, apparently delivered by mistake, with instructions to postal workers to pay special attention to letters and packages sent to his home." It continued: "Show all mail to supv. For copying prior to going out on the street."

Pickering told the reporter that more than a decade before he had been the spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front, "a radical environmental group labeled eco-terrorists by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The article reported that postal officials had confirmed they were indeed tracking Pickering's mail, but told him nothing else.

The Times article then explained that "at the request of law enforcement officials, postal workers record information from the outside of letters and parcels before they are delivered."

The Times' revelation led me to investigate the government's compliance with Judge Whipple's order to revise the mail cover regulation in accordance with his opinion. Its latest iteration authorizes mail cover to obtain information in order to: 1) Protect national security; 2) Locate a fugitive; 3) Obtain evidence of commission or attempted commission of a crime; 4) Obtain evidence of violation or attempted violation of a postal statute; or 5) Assist in the identification of property, proceeds of assets forfeitable under the law."

The operative language then authorizes the chief postal inspector of his designee to order mail covers to "protect the national security ... when a written request is received from any law enforcement agency in which the requesting authority specifies the reasonable grounds to demonstrate the mail cover is necessary to protect the national security."

It seems reasonably apparent that any mail cover on Pickering's mail was pursuant to the "national security" provision. How many other such covers are carried out every year by the Postal Service and FBI is anyone's guess.

[fruhmenschen]

Do you think this non-sentence FBI Supervisor Ken Kaiser received is fair?
Is there a mandatory minimum sentence for the crime Kaiser committed?
Do you think the fix was in?
How can you tell when the fix is in?
What can you do if you believe the fix was in?
What other cases are similar to this case?
For example FBI agent Lovett Ledger in Waco Texas
For example John Lesko of Virginia.

Ken Kaiser recently retired as head of the Boston FBI office. The FBI office in Boston has been characterized as a cesspool
of FBI corruption. There is a reasonable chance very special FBI supervisor Kaiser retired at a Grade 15 Step 10 which indicates he would have been making a salary of:
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2006

Annual Rates by Grade and Step


$142737.00 see http://archive.opm.gov/oca/06tables/html/BOS_leo.asp


When he retired he would receive 59% of his annual salary unless he was under the FERS plan initiated by Ronald Reagan.

see link for full story
http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/ind ... 00_fo.html

Boston FBI chief Kenneth Kaiser pleads guilty in ethics case
October 03, 2013
The former head of the Boston FBI office has pleaded guilty to an ethics charge in a plea agreement that spares him from prison time but seeks a $15,000 fine.


Part of becoming a smart criminal justice consumer is recognizing what individuals and companies are part of the FBI Sensitive Informant program . These are people who do not officially work for the FBI but do work for FBI agents as paid and unpaid informants
providing a wide variety of services. see http://bobmccarty.com/2013/12/05/everyt ... t-program/

An example is compare the story about Ken Kaiser at the above link and the story run by the Boston Herald.

see http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/lo ... r_contacts


Do you think one of these newspapers is in bed with the Boston FBI?

[fruhmenschen]

In other news about the taxpayer funded FBI Crime Family FBI Agent Pleads Guilty to Illegal Bank Deposits in Scheme to Hide Gambling From Bosses - See more at: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/12/17/367 ... lates.html

[fruhmenschen]

FBI Raid In San Diego -ALF

Thursday Dec 19th, 2013 2:03 PM
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/1 ... 748091.php

My name is Nicole and my house was raided By the FBI, JTTF, and local
sheriffs. The agents shouted FBI opened up we have a search warrant, as we (my mom and I) got pulled outside they
stormed the house, we also have three companion animals, luckily the dogs were with us, but the
cat was upstairs. As soon as we got back inside I said I want to see the warrant,
one agent told me that I would have it momentarily. The two main agents
that I could tell, were agent Debbie Fry and agent Kyle Bremersiemeu.
Those were the first two agents that talked to me and said they wanted to
talk to me. Before we went upstairs I again asked to see the warrant and
they again said I would have it momentarily. They
introduced themselves and then said that they were both from the FBI
offices in San Francisco. I told them as soon as they started talking that
I would not answer any questions without my lawyer present. They started with Nicole we've been
following you for a little while now, showing me pictures of myself
getting gas. She told me that she knew I moved to Portland with another friend that they have been
keeping an eye on. She showed me pictures of different incidents and told me that it
was me. She showed me a picture from a surveillance camera of a car that
looked like mine and said that it was mine. She said that yes these are
just surveillance camera pictures but the FBI has better pictures of the
incidents and can tell that its my car. Then she showed me another picture
of two people in black and she told me that one of them was me. I was not
being responsive and kept looking at the ground. Than agent Debbie said you and this other persyn have been going on a lot
of trips and when you were back in Oakland, we searched your car. She
showed me pictures of what she told me were bolt cutters, and muriatic acid
found in my car. She also said she had attained mink hair found in my car and brought up two animal activist that were recently arrested in Illinois. I kept looking outside and agent Kyle and Debbie kept bringing up the other persyn.
They told me that when said persyn was still with me that they were seeing other womyn behind my back. Agent Kyle
noticed I kept looking outside and said why are you looking outside, you cant runaway now. Finally they stopped and we were taken back downstairs. While downstairs I asked to see the warrant again and again they told me I
would see it momentarily. So we sat in the living room while they conducted the search. Then
they told me I also had a warrant for my finger prints and my DNA. I told
them I didn't want to do that and then one agent womyn told me that she
would force me to do so because it was ordered by a judge. So they finally left my house around 12:45 pm and upon leaving I asked for
the agents cards and they ignored me and kept talking
to my mom. I said again I wanted their names and they told me they would
write it on the back of a card.

IN Solidarity with everyone of us that they are trying to silence.
Nicole

The warrant was for anything relating to businesses of animal industries, mink, clothes, books/ zines pertaining to mink, bobcat, and animal rights, maps, and for my car.

[fruhmenschen]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ed-secrets




You'll Never Guess Where This FBI Agent Left a Secret Interrogation Manual
"Security screwups are not very uncommon. But this is a first."
Dec. 20, 2013
Unlocked FBI report

In a lapse that national security experts call baffling, a high-ranking FBI agent filed a sensitive internal manual detailing the bureau's secret interrogation procedures with the Library of Congress, where anyone with a library card can read it.

For years, the American Civil Liberties Union fought a legal battle to force the FBI to release a range of documents concerning FBI guidelines, including this one, which covers the practices agents are supposed to employ when questioning suspects. Through all this, unbeknownst to the ACLU and the FBI, the manual sat in a government archive open to the public. When the FBI finally relented and provided the ACLU a version of the interrogation guidebook last year, it was heavily redacted; entire pages were blacked out. But the version available at the Library of Congress, which a Mother Jones reporter reviewed last week, contains no redactions.

The 70-plus-page manual ended up in the Library of Congress, thanks to its author, an FBI official who made an unexplainable mistake. This FBI supervisory special agent, who once worked as a unit chief in the FBI's counterterrorism division, registered a copyright for the manual in 2010 and deposited a copy with the US Copyright Office, where members of the public can inspect it upon request. What's particularly strange about this episode is that government documents cannot be copyrighted.

"A document that has not been released does not even need a copyright," says Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists. "Who is going to plagiarize from it? Even if you wanted to, you couldn't violate the copyright because you don't have the document. It isn't available."

"The whole thing is a comedy of errors," he adds. "It sounds like gross incompetence and ignorance."

Julian Sanchez, a fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute who has studied copyright policy, was harsher: "Do they not cover this in orientation? [Sensitive] documents should not be placed in public repositories—and, by the way, aren't copyrightable. How do you even get a clearance without knowing this stuff?"

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The FBI agent who registered for the copyright did so under his own name—effectively claiming the rights for himself, not the FBI. An FBI spokesman told Mother Jones the bureau has been made aware of the matter but "cannot provide any further information at this time regarding this subject."

The version of the interrogation manual the agent deposited with the copyright office is dated August 18, 2008, but it wasn't filed until January 2010. The redacted version released to the ACLU is dated February 23, 2011.

Because the two versions are similar, a side-by-side comparison allows a reader to deduce what was redacted in the later version. The copyright office does not allow readers to take pictures or notes, but during a brief inspection, a few redactions stood out.

The ACLU has previously criticized the interrogation manual for endorsing the isolation of detainees and including favorable references to the KUBARK manual, a 1963 CIA interrogation guidebook that encouraged torture methods, including electric shocks. The group has also expressed concern that the manual adopts aspects of the Reid Technique, a common law enforcement interview method that has been known to produce false confessions. A redacted sentence in the manual says the document is intended for use by the FBI's "clean" teams—investigators who collect information intended for use in federal prosecutions. That raises the question of whether teams collecting information that's not for use in federal courts would have to follow the manual's (already permissive) guidelines at all.

Another section, blacked out in the version provided to the ACLU, encourages FBI agents to stage a "date-stamped full-body picture" of a detainee, complete with a bottle of water, for use in refuting abuse allegations at trial.

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story
http://dissidentvoice.org/devnull/
Are 9/11 Truthers Anti-Israel?

An interview with Elias Davidsson

by Ludwig Watzal / December 20th, 2013

More than twelve years have passed since 9/11 happened. Although the 9/11 Commission produced a voluminous “9/11 Commission Report”, it did not provide answers to central questions concerning the circumstances of this horrendous crime. Critical observers have noted numerous glaring omissions, contradictions, anomalies and misrepresentations in this report. Even the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission admitted in a joint book they later published, that their report was deficient in many ways and that the Commission had been lied to by government agencies. One of the reactions to this deficient report was the emergence of a “truth movement”, which consists of experts from different scientific fields, who question the official narrative and demand a truly independent investigation of the crime.

Elias Davidsson is one of these “truthers” who challenges the official narrative on 9/11.

He is also concerned about the claim made by some “truthers” that Israel was behind the attacks. He is not, by any means, a sympathizer of Israel. On the contrary, as his writings demonstrate, he not only denounces the oppressive policies of the State of Israel against the Palestinians, but considers that state as inherently dangerous for its neighbors. The fact should be mentioned that he is Jewish and has family in Israel.

Davidsson’s concern appears justified. The catchwords “9/11 and Israel” produce over 66 million hits on Google. Immediately after the attacks some traces to an “Israeli connection” were publicized in U.S. media, including by media notoriously supportive of Israel, such as Fox News.
About this and other topics regarding 9/11, I talked to Mr. Davidsson after he presented in Bonn, Germany, in November 2013, his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, released in May in New York.

Ludwig Watzal: A few months ago you published the book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11. What made you write this book twelve years later, when all questions concerning the 9/11 attacks seem to have been answered?

hijack_DVElias Davidsson: In 2002, it was pointed out to me, that the official account on 9/11 is dubious. Until then, I believed what mass media told us, namely that the mass murder had been orchestrated by Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden and executed by 19 fanatic Muslims. At first, I doubted that the contrary evidence – published by Thierry Meyssan – was credible. Yet, my sense of curiosity led me nevertheless to check the facts. I discovered that grounds for suspicion were justified. This led me to extend my research of 9/11. I was not alone in this endeavor. One of the main focuses of such research was the puzzling demise of the Twin Towers. A consensus is gradually emerging among engineers and architects that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and building WTC No 7 had been demolished by explosives and/or more exotic means. This conclusion implies official malfeasance and complicity in mass murder. Yet the question remained nagging me: what to make of the other part of the official account, namely the alleged participation of 19 Islamic fanatics in hijacking four airliners, steering them to death and succeeding to avoid interception by the US air force. I decided, therefore, to search for evidence supporting these claims. I discovered that such evidence does not exist. Not a shred of it. This may sound unbelievable, yet despite the most exacting searches, I could not find any such evidence. I also discovered that there exists no evidence that passenger airliners crashed on 9/11: The FBI actually admitted to have failed to link the wreckage of the crashed aircraft to the airliners that were allegedly hijacked. Having made these discoveries, I found it necessary to deal with an additional puzzle, namely what to make of the telephone calls that were allegedly made from the hijacked planes and in which passengers and crew members reported hijackings. I spent a great deal of time to track and analyze all known phone calls. These analyses represent until now, to my knowledge, the most thorough examination of the 9/11 phone calls. I concluded that the callers did not report real events. They did not lie, yet did not say the truth. I won’t reveal here the solution of this paradox and its sinister sequels. Readers are invited to track my analysis and draw their own conclusions from the wealth of details provided in the book. As I finished the book, any doubt that might have lingered in my mind regarding the identity of the 9/11 plotters, dissipated: I became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job by the US military.

LW: There are still many people who believe that the alleged hijackers were able to steer an airliner onto the Pentagon.

ED: To these individuals I only say: The first step in investigating a plane crash is to determine its identity and the identities of its passengers. The next step would be to determine who among the passengers might have had a motive and the capabilities to cause the crash. In the case of 9/11, neither the identities of the debris were determined nor was the presence of the 19 suspects in the planes ever proven. For this reason, it is moot to examine their alleged flight skills. One does not examine the flight skills of ghosts. Those who nevertheless attempted to examine the flight skills of the alleged hijackers discovered that precisely the pilot of flight AA77, which allegedly crashed on the Pentagon, was a completely incompetent pilot who could not, according to his teachers, properly maintain a one-motored Cessna in the air. While even an amateur pilot might have been able to steer an aircraft onto the huge roof of the Pentagon, professional pilots doubt that any pilot could have steered a Boeing 757 horizontally at 500 mph with an altitude of 15 feet above the ground (the aircraft is said to have crashed horizontally on the side of the Pentagon between the first and second floor).

LW: Shortly after the attacks the story of Osama bin Laden and his men were aired worldwide and nobody dared to question it. Do you think that bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan could have masterminded such an attack with dilettantes armed with box cutters?

ED: Before asking whether bin Laden could have masterminded anything, it is worthwhile to note that the U.S. government had never accused him of complicity in 9/11, as admitted by the FBI in 2006. The U.S. government did not even take seriously the conclusion of the German Upper Court of Hamburg (Oberlandesgericht), that Osama bin Laden had selected Mohamed Atta and his friends to conduct 9/11. This conclusion was not shared by the US. This leaves us with the question what role Osama bin Laden played during the years in which he was depicted as a master terrorist: Was he a willing or unwitting US agent, as some maintain, or a genuine, but pathetic, fighter against Americans and Jews, as others maintain? This question has, however, no direct bearing on 9/11. A true history of Osama bin Laden has still to be written.

LW: In a speech before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on October 3, 2007, General Wesley Clark mentions an accidental meeting with Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 at the Pentagon in which Wolfowitz said that the US could use its military in the Middle East without being stopped by the Russians: “We have got about 5 to 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” And Clark continued: “This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup. Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld, you can name a half of dozen collaborators from the ‘Project of a New American Century’. They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, and make it under our control.” Taking this statement into account and linking it to the call of this “Project” for a “new Pearl Harbor”, what comes up to your mind regarding 9/11?

ED: It is fairly logical that after the demise of the Soviet bloc, the US had an immense window of opportunity to secure its global hegemony for decades to come. But doing so required immense resources and thus the approval of the US population. Such approval could only be secured if a traumatic event would arise, which could be ascribed to a deadly enemy. The mass-murder of 9/11 filled the bill. Such reasoning is no proof that 9/11 was an inside job. It is, however, a proof that the U.S. administration, acting on behalf of Corporate America and the military-industrial complex, possessed a huge motive to see a “new Pearl Harbor” occur.

Wolfowitz was correct in assessing the window of opportunity as five to ten years. There exists evidence that the United States began “manufacturing” its new epochal enemy (Islamic terrorism), replacing the Red Menace, precisely around 1990.

LW: The circumstances surrounding 9/11 seem to be the West’s newest and greatest taboo. To question the official narrative endangers a person’s career. Even the academic community seems afraid to ask the relevant questions. You have been in direct contact with representatives of academia over 9/11. What is your experience?

ED: The overwhelming majority of academics do not wish even to discuss 9/11, let alone examine the nuts and bolts of these events. Part of this fear is that of being ostracized by peers or even endangering one’s career. Another part of the fear is that discovering the truth about 9/11 would inevitably shatter the questioner’s comfortable world view. I suspect that many academics regard 9/11 as a Pandora’s Box, best kept locked. If 9/11 was indeed an “inside job”, that would mean that political parties, media, the business community and the judiciary have been lying to us through their teeth for more than a decade and based their various policies, including wars and massive surveillance, on a monumental lie. Not many people are willing to live with such conclusions about their cherished institutions, even if such conclusions are, in my view, justified. We have here, I argue, an unprecedented case of mass denial, a pathological phenomenon that undermines the fundaments of the Age of Reason.

LW: In an recently published article by Eric Walberg on the website Dissident Voice, the author hinted at a connection between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the CIA concerning the 9/11 attacks. Does such collaboration makes more sense to you than the “official” story?

ED: It is possible that various states, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Germany have provided the United States some assistance in preparing 9/11. However – and this is an important caveat – I do not believe that the governments of these states or even their intelligence services, knew about the plans of 9/11. The U.S. planners would have been foolish to share the plans of 9/11 with other states. Thus, it is likely that the Saudi authorities helped recruit some individuals to be used as patsies in the United States and later designated as hijackers. But it is unlikely that the Saudis were advised about the ultimate role of these patsies.

LW: Shortly after the attacks, there were media reports on a possible “Israeli connection”. These reports centered on Larry Silverstein, Dov Zakheim, the five “dancing Israelis” and the “Israeli art students”. Please could you unravel this tangle of guesswork for the public and give us your judgment?

ED: Larry Silverstein was and is a known real-estate mogul in New York. He is Jewish and a known friend of Israeli politicians, such as Ariel Sharon and Benyamin Netanyahu. He was for many years the owner of WTC No. 7, a 47-floor building that housed, inter alia, New York City’s Emergency Center, offices of the CIA, SEC, the Secret Service and other government bodies. In 2001, the City of New York decided to lease out the Twin Towers to private investors. One of the bidders was Larry Silverstein.

Larry Silverstein is suspected in some circles for the above reasons to be an accomplice to the mass murder of 9/11, in which several of his own employees died. Yet, he did not make any effort to cover his alleged tracks. He leased the WTC just six weeks before 9/11, announced this lease to the world, insured it against terrorism for a whopping $3.2 billion and “admitted” in a documentary film to have given on 9/11 the authorization to “pull” WTC 7 (that is to demolish the building). He then sued insurance companies for double damages, because each tower was hit by a separate aircraft, thus displaying what would be widely regarded as greed. He even admitted to have escaped death by canceling a meeting at the WTC on 9/11. And he has never attempted to conceal his friendship with controversial Israeli politicians, such as Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu.

We have here all the requisite elements: A greedy Jew, proximity to the crime, motive. It is precisely the high visibility of Larry Silverstein as an ideal villain that makes me hesitate to implicate him in the crime. His alleged complicity is simply too obvious. It is difficult to believe that a person implicated in planning arson would take out a lease of the building six weeks before the crime and announce his agreement publicly. It is even more difficult to believe that a smart businessman, such as Silverstein, would risk the electrical chair in a criminal enterprise whose outcome he could not foresee. It is far more probable that Silverstein was framed into leasing the World Trade Center by the real plotters, precisely because he is greedy, because he is Jewish, and because of his ties to Israel. More to the point: Silverstein was not in a position to manage the hijacking exercises conducted by the military on the morning of 9/11, not in a position to steer airplanes against buildings and not in a position to wire WTC 7 within hours to demolish the building. Whatever his alleged role in 9/11, if any, the coordinators of Operation 9/11 did not sit in his office, but presumably in the Pentagon, led by Donald Rumsfeld. Larry Silverstein, however, represents an ideal bogeyman.

The fact that Mr. Silverstein did not demonstrate any interest in investigating the demise of the Twin Towers he had leased, is no evidence of malfeasance. In that he acted like most Americans, who till this day do not wish to ask questions and know the truth.

Dov Zakheim is another such ideal bogeyman. He is an ordained rabbi who made it to a high position in both government and private business. He worked in the Pentagon between 1985 and 1987. From 1987-2001, Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a high-technology firm that manufactures, inter alia, equipment to remotely control aircraft. During 2000, he served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush. He was hired as a Comptroller of the Pentagon in the spring of 2001. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Secretary, announced to a stupefied internal Pentagon audience that the Pentagon could not track $2.3 trillion dollars in its books. This statement disappeared, as it were, into the memory hole the next day because of the deadly events, but continues to be widely quoted by Jew-bashers, who connect these missing funds to Zakheim. A Google search on the string “$2.3 billion Zakheim” yields no less than 150,000 hits. But is it at all true that the Pentagon could not track $2.3 trillion, as Rumsfeld claimed? And if that was the case, could Zakheim make that money disappear from Pentagon accounting within a few months? And if he could do so, why wasn’t he accused, charged, and prosecuted? But probably the most important question is: Why did Rumsfeld make at all this statement, and precisely on the eve of 9/11? Wouldn’t a political leader rather attempt to conceal such apparent malfeasance? Or was there a hidden motive behind this bizarre announcement?

In order to implicate Israel in the events of 9/11, the story of the “five dancing Israelis” is often invoked. There is no dispute that five young Israelis were seen photographing the Twin Towers after they were hit and possibly making signs that were interpreted as celebration. They were arrested by the New York police after a woman, only known as Maria, called the police to report their suspicious conduct, as seen from her window. Interestingly, it was highlighted in the media that these Israelis were found in the possession of box cutters when they were arrested. The theme of box cutters was to remain attached to the alleged hijackings. A mere coincidence? The boys were, anyway, kept in detention in the United States for several weeks, and then deported to Israel. Two of them appeared in an Israeli TV show and said that they were photographing the Twin Towers to “document the event”. They implied that this had been their task but did not say who tasked them with that mission. This episode suggests Israeli foreknowledge of the events. Another case of foreknowledge, also involving Israelis, is an email message received by two employees of the Israeli company Odigo two hours before the attacks. It has not been determined who sent the message and the reason for informing Odigo. One explanation would be that the plotters wished to connect Israel somehow to the attacks.

And finally, we have the canard that 4,000 Jews, forewarned, did not come to work to the World Trade Center on 9/11. A mere glance at the names and backgrounds of the WTC victims suffices to rubbish this story. Many Jews died in the Twin Towers. While this story is false, it is actually based on an authentic news report that appeared in the Jerusalem Post on September 12, 2001. According to that report, the Israeli Foreign Ministry expressed its concern about the fate of 4,000 Israelis (not “Jews”) believed to be present around or in the World Trade Center. It is not known from where the Ministry obtained the figure of 4,000. As it turned out, only 2-3 Israelis died at the World Trade Center. In order to assess whether this low ratio of Israeli fatalities is plausible or not, it would have been necessary to know how many Israeli nationals actually worked in the Twin Towers and on which floors they worked. I could find no such information. It is known, however, that an Israeli shipping company (ZIM) moved its offices from the WTC shortly before 9/11. It is not known where exactly these offices were located in the buildings. This move is also invoked by some observers as a sign of foreknowledge. If ZIM was forewarned, who was doing the warning and made ZIM thus a suspect?

LW: What might be the motives for linking Israel to 9/11?

ED: Presuming, as I do, that 9/11 served U.S. imperial – and more generally Western – interests and was executed by entities under the control of the U.S. military, the plotters had evidently to conceal their trail and engage in serious efforts to impute their crime to others. Until now they did so by attributing the crime to 19 Islamic hijackers, who are presumably dead (or never existed). As this initial story is being increasingly debunked, a fall-back position for the plotters would be to blame the attack on other entities. Recent attempts are made by members of the U.S. Congress, for example, to blame 9/11 on the Saudis. But who are better placed as bogeymen than Jews or Israel? The Nazis used this method with great success. Why wouldn’t the US elite repeat this sordid game, if it fears that its days are counted? I suspect therefore that the “Israel did it” meme in regard to 9/11 is maintained over low fire by powerful forces in the United States in reserve for the day when the American people will discover that 9/11 was an inside job. If that should happen, the US elite would suddenly “discover” evidence that Jews within the Pentagon orchestrated 9/11 in cooperation with the Mossad; that American Jews led hapless Americans to attack other countries; that Jews were responsible for the introduction of torture and extra-judicial executions and that the PATRIOT Act was a Jewish project to control Americans.

LW: After you rubbished the official narrative and the so-called Israel link, who, in your view, could have had the largest interest to commit such a horrendous crime? What geopolitical and geostrategic interests could the US have in engineering such an operation?

ED: As I already mentioned above, I consider it beyond dispute that the US military planned and executed the mass-murder of 9/11 on behalf of the US elite (which, evidently, includes also persons of Jewish descent). The operation served multiple purposes, all beneficial to the US elite: It provided justification for the occupation of Afghanistan, a strategically location in Central Asia; it provided justification for destroying and rebuilding Iraq (both of which were profitable to U.S. corporations); it provided justification for a U.S.-led global War on Terrorism; it provided justification for huge increases in military appropriations and corresponding profits of the military-industrial complex; it provided justification for the erosion of constitutional rights and international law; it provided justification for global Big Brother measures, led by the NRO and NSA; and it provided the justification for the establishment of a new and profitable security industry. All of these developments have been detrimental to human rights, individual freedoms and global peace. That is one of the reasons why I consider that challenging the official myth of 9/11 is one of the most urgent tasks facing humanity today.

LW: Mr. Davidsson thank you very much for the interview.

Elias Davidsson was born in 1941 in Palestine to Jewish parents. His parents were born in Germany but had to immigrate to Palestine due to the Nazi persecution of Jews. He lived in his youth in France, Germany and the United States until he settled finally in Iceland in 1962. After working for 20 years in the computer field, he changed to musical occupation, as a music teacher, choir master, arranger and composer. In parallel to his profession, Davidsson has for many years been involved in activism and research regarding social and global justice, peace, anti-racism and human rights. Since 1990, Davidsson has focused on the role of international law as a tool for peace and published several scholarly articles in legal journals.

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story

http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest242.htm

CHICAGO STYLE CORRUPTION IN GRANTS PASS OREGON





By Former City Councilor Bob Anderson
December 21, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Grants Pass Oregon, Where The City Government Fears The Truth.
Tell It, And They Send The FBI To Shut You Up.

Grants Pass, Oregon: - I've lived in Grants Pass Oregon for 30 years. It's where I raised my family on blue-collar wages. I own a house and property and pay my taxes. I'm a good citizen. Why then, did FBI Special Agents visit my private shop today?

[fruhmenschen]

21 December 2013

Lavabit Document Observation

Mr. Atkinson's website offers a large compendium of counterspying documents.

A sends:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James M. Atkinson <jmatk[at]tscm.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:17 AM
Subject: [TSCM-L] {6544} Lavabit Document Observation
To: TSCM-L Mailingin List <tscm-l2006[at]googlegroups.com>

Through the Lavabit document just recently posted on Cryptome

http://cryptome.org/2013/12/lavabit-027.pdf

I would like to point out the following.

On page 61 of 148, and at other places on the document posted, the name of the person of interest is blacked out, however this name can be derived by character position analysis using the flaws present in the Court Rules.

In the Courts rules, it provides that the captions are to be in all caps, but this requirement actually makes it substantially easier to determine the censored details, as "ALL CAPS" creates a diffrent pitch and spacing to "all caps." Thus, the Caption on page 61 of 148 reflects 17 missing characters in the line which ends with "THAT IS"

This is also visible in a number of other captions as ell.

Thusly, the uncensored text of the line would read as "EDWARD J. SNOWDEN THAT IS" but it could also be read as "MR. EDWARD NOWDEN" as well with 18 characters in the same space.

On page 70 of 148, and name "Edward Snowden" is mentioned in line 2, or paragraph C.

On page 9 of 148, the signature is illegible, plus there is no name, jurisdiction (on the signature), or anything else to provide any legitimacy to this order. The order is likely invalid, and a fictional documents created by the FBI. They do have a proven hostory of faking orders like this in which they drop the judges/magistrtates name form on a faked document, but place hat appears to be a legitimate signature, then the faked documents is fed to the clerk of court and is filed into the record, with no mention of whom the judge/magistrate actually is.

The motion to compel fails to address the order filed on 10 June 2013, and does not actually mention that an order (June 10, 2013) was signed, and is in the record, or maybe I am missing something.

Where is the "Notice of Preservation" and the matching "Order of Preservation" that would be normally issued in such a case as this?

The magistrate judge who signed the order on page 16 of 148, likley did not bother to read the order, and had a remarkable lack of understanding as of what a "Pen Register" is and what a "trap and trace" device actually is, or she would not have attached her signature (notice that her signature is not the same as that found on page 9.

Also, make note that pages 16 and 15 or 148 were authored and signed with a "/s/" and not with an actual signature, and that at a later time (after the authoring of the document) initials were added next to a signature block, and then some sort of illegible seal added. This magistrtate judge also lacks the authority to order the decryption of encrypted digital content by means of a trap and trace order against a company which does not keep such records, and which does not possess the capabilities of providing such a service. The magistrate steps wide outside to bounds of both her jurisdiction, and likely outside the bounds of her competencies in technical matters (and is being playing for the fool by the FBI). Also, the data that she is "ordering" to be produced is not described in a meaningful way, and there are no FBI affidavits that such information even is known to exist at Lavabit. Or, the FBI knows tha data exsists but they do not wish to reveal to the court that they have been running an illegal mass surveillance operation.

The magistrate also demonstrates her lack of knowledge in the order by directing it at the service provider (Lavabit) instead of the actual fiber provider. Thus, the pen/trap is supposed to be on the company that provided connectivity services to Lavabit, not on Lavabit itself. If this as a legitimate trap/trace order for information then it would be directed against Sprint, AT&T, MCI or the other carrier who provides connectivity from Lavabit to the outside world... but wait, those taps are already in place, the leakd NSA/Snowden documents prove that it is in place, so this Magistrate is just diddlying around and trying to unlawfully "bully around Lavabit" but Lavabit is the utterly wrong place to direct a pen tap, or trap and trace. She should not be signing orders that she does not understand, if in fact that is her initials are on the order.

Lavabit as already tapped, the already leakd ECI classified documents prove that it was. Everything that the FBI was seeking is/was already in the possession of the government prior to the issuing of this (likely fake) court order. Lavabit actually had no reson to believe that the various orders were little more then unintelligible jibberish.

Again on page 19 of 148 we see a stamped "/s/" that does not align in the same manner as we also see on page 16, so documents are not being signed/initialed in the same way, and there is no seal on this page either, like we see on page 16. In fact CAREFULLY look at the signature blocks on page 16 and 19 and notice the alignment issues and that the frigging signatures (of the same person) are not even a close match. So, who exactly is signing these orders? What else did she sign (or the government claims she signed) on the same day, and has she actually at work on that day and can the government prove that she was actually in the building? I mention that because in the past there have been cases here a magistrate's name and signature was present on a document that was attributed to them, when it as medically impossible for them to have actaully signed anything from a bed in the intensive care unit, as they were in a coma at a time (but oh, heck did they sign a huge volume of "court orders" while in said coma). Pay careful attention to the signature blocks, the initials, and then consider the fact that Lavabit was utterly the wrong level to be directing such an order.

Granted Lavabit MIGHT possess a very limited amount of data, used by the customer to establish service originally, but there is no probable cause to believe or suspect that Lavabit was in possession of 99% of the data the court was ordering be produced, if in fact anybody in a black cocktail dress actually read the document before they initially it.

Then read down to page 22 of 148, in where it is mentioned that Lavabit DID provide what little data it had, but that the the FBI wanted data that exceeded reality, and was having a temper tantrum. In fact very carefully look at the timeline that the government lists at this moment in time, in that the FBI DID NOT actually have an order in hand when they ambushed the Lavabit founder at his home, and it took them a while of fishing around to get a copy (of a document they forgot to bring with them). It was wise for the Lavabit founder to stop talking to the FBI and to invoke his right to counsel, as the agents were claiming to have a court order, which they did not actually have, and given the FBI history of document fabrication (and that the document provided to Lavabit was very "hinky and convienent") there is every reason for Lavabit to suspect the FBI had no such order and was confabulating one on-site as it were.

Back up and actually CLOSELY look at page 22, and how the agents originally (think of an FBI agent sitting in a van, a few hundred feet away, running recording devices, an creating an order and initials out of a vacuum, the speed suggests a document/order being forged, so look at the /s/ on one page and initials, and the unmatching ones on another).

I do not know if the FBI agents fakeed the order, but there is a proven history of them doing so in the past, and there is also a grand tradition of judges and magistrates signing orders that they do not understand.

The signature of Judge Hilton on page 29 of 148 is a "clean signuture" unlike the "unclean signatures" present on documents (possible fictional orders) attributed to the magistrate.

The "description of things to be brought" on page 30 of 148 can not be brought if they do not exist in the possession of Lavabit.

On page 32 or 148, I would hope that his honor consulted the 4th and 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because there is no Affidavit attached that overcomes Franks. Indeed the warrant gives a location of "Attachment B" but at no place in Attachment B is an actual location given. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that the place must be specified in the warrant (which it does not), and this is what is called in the legal profession (a royal fuck up, by a sitting federal judge, assuming that he actually read the document, before signing it, and did not merely pencil whip it). As the warrant describes a item to be seized, but fails to mention the location where it may be found, it is likely the FBI got this warrant to illegally burglarize Lavabit and copy their hard drives and tapes, covertly.

So on the same day that Lavabit was in court the Judge issues a highly defective search arrant, so the FBI cna illegally search a place that is not included or references in the warrant, while the founder of Lavabit is in Alexandria (and the place to be searched presumedly in Dallas).

On page 38 or 148, e can count don the charactrs missing of the censored verison to be "MR. EDWARD J. SNOWDEN" or roughly 20-21 characters.

On page 38 or 148, were is the application for the search warrant, the affidavit for the search warrant (if on actually exists), and so on.

Keep in mind, that at the heart of the entire Snowden Affair is federal judges illegally issuing search warrants, not merely against Snowden, but rather on everybody in the country (illegally), and that a select group in Congress who are hell-bent on destroying this nation looked the other way.

So on page 42 or 148 e se that the "Pen/Trap" function was not already on the Lavabit system, and that it woudl have to be programmed, and not merely installed. Insisting that the government pay for the time required to design a section of code to implement a filter is within a reasonable request and the prices quoted by Lavabit is miniscule when considering the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. Government has paid for other providers to develop similar code. If the government refuses to pay for very reasonable time to write the code up front, then the founder of Lavabits can not be compelled to do the computer programming for free (after all slavery is no longer legal in most states).

On page 42, $375,000 would be a more "reasonable" amount given that any computer programmign would have to be carefully crafted, tested and documnted prior to deployment, and that giving the FBI and fully unrestricted backdoor into a system is the wet dram of the FBI, but such access is prohibited by law. Of course it also says that a sitting judge is supposed to actually read and understand what they sign off on, but what the hell, the Constitution is widely regarded as a minor inconvenience by the FBI in such cases.

On page 48 and 49, the Judge is way out of line, as the founder of Lavabit has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel, and the court is directly denying (or is appearing to deny) him that right.

On page 50 or 148, line 12-14 the government lies, or is repeating a lie told to it by the FBI.

Also, notice page 52 or 148, line 15-19, which suggests that the government was seeking the encryption keys for ALL USERS and not merely for Snowden.

Page 53 or 148 suggests the judge has ben played for the fool by the FBI.

Then on page 54 of 148 the judge starts to realize the government has played him for a fool. re: Page 52, line 24-25 and Page 53, line 1, and then the court on page 54, lines 3-6.

Page 56, line 9... the judge totally does not understand that the government is up to.

Page 57, I note that at no time has Mr. Levison refused to install, and then look at page 57, line 23.

Very carefully read the top of page 70 or 148, re: Keene.

On page 74 or 148, read footnote #1

Page 75 or 148, in regards to "General Warrants" these are forbidden by law, as per the Supreme Court, and then the entirety of page 76.

See page 79, second paragraph.

Page 85 of 148 the government fails to disclose to the court that the government has long ago broken SSL, TSL, HTTPS, and other "secure protocols" and that anyting transmittd by use of such "secure mthods" is not actually secure or private. In fact, the leaked Snowden documents deliver a lot of specific programs inside the NSA/FBI to violate these "secure systems"

On page 92 or 148, there is mention that the government installed the tap at the service provider of Lavabit, and not on Lavabit itself (see my comments earlier up), and that the governmnt is sucking up all e-mail of all users, at all times.

Page 95 of 148, item B(2) the warrant in question does not specify a place or the person, merely a thing.

Page 111 of 148, Ahem, Mr. Binnall, be sure to mention that the warrant does not state a "place of person" merley a thing, and then the ECI matter of SSL alraedy being compromised.

Page 117 of 148, line 22 and 23, "HORSE SHIT"

Page 117 of 148, line 16 and 17, the Judge rally should get a comedy show, in Vegas, black cocktail dress and all.

Pay careful note of page 119, line 7 to 14

Page 121, line 7 - 17, "BULL SHIT"

Page 132 - 137, if you understand how ciphers are moved and transmitted, you will recognize that these keys are legitimate and that the government (or somebody) copied these pages on a copier, then lightened the copy, and then made a copy, then a copy of a copy, and then scanned in these deliberately tampered codes to tho court in order to deceive the court. Indeed the court WAS in fact misled by the governments fiction, and the court IMHO acted improperly, as Lavabit did as the court ordered, but not what the government wanted, so they had a little temper tantrum.

Fuck the Pigs.

-jma
http://cryptome.org/2013/12/lavabit-observation.htm

James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
Granite Island Group http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 381-9111 jmatk[at]tscm.com

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662
https://www.facebook.com/james.m.atkinson1

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to tscm-l2006+unsubscribe[at]googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story



http://qz.com/160999/the-fbi-considered ... ropaganda/


The FBI considered “It’s a Wonderful Life” to be Communist propaganda
December 24 2013


It’s a Wonderful Life is a staple of the holiday season in the United States, but it was once considered un-American by the government.
+

From the film’s release in 1946 until 1956, it was listed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as suspected Communist propaganda. Mr. Potter, the villainous banker who nearly drives George Bailey to financial ruin and suicide, “represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as ‘scrooge-type’ so that he would be the most hated man in the picture,” according to an FBI report (pdf, pg. 14) in 1947.
+

The report called it “a common trick used by Communists.”

[fruhmenschen]

see link for full story
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/25/f ... lashcards/


Federal judge rules that TSA, FBI can detain and arrest you for carrying Arabic flashcards
By Scott Kaufman
Wednesday, December 25, 2013

A former college student detained at Philadelphia International Airport after Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials discovered he was carrying Arabic language flashcards lost his bid to sue the federal agents who detained him.

Nicholas George alleged that the TSA agents violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested him as he tried to board a flight from his Philadelphia home to Pomona College in 2009.

According to Chief Judge Theodore McKee’s ruling, despite the fact that George clearly had the right to carry the flashcards, the TSA agents were “at the outer boundary” of justifiability in detaining him. In addition to everyday words and phrases like “day before yesterday,” “fat,” “cheap,” and “pink,” the deck of flashcards also contained and phrases like “bomb,” “terrorist,” “explosion,” and “to target.”

Judge McKee believes that those words and phrases warranted further investigation, even though George told the officers that he was using the flashcards in order to learn Arabic for a study abroad program in which he would be traveling to Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan.

“I want to serve my country using my Arabic language,” George told CNN. “And it just seems crazy to me that for that I was arrested and treated like a criminal.”

George claimed that after the first two officers discovered the cards, they swabbed his person and cell-phone for explosive residue, then called a supervisor. George alleged that when the supervisor arrived, she subjected him to an aggressive interrogation.

TSA AGENT: Do you know who did 9/11?

GEORGE: Osama bin Laden.

TSA AGENT: Do you know what language he spoke?

GEORGE: Arabic.

TSA AGENT: Do you see why these cards are suspicious?

While this TSA agent was questioning George, a Philadelphia police officer entered the room, handcuffed him and led him through the terminal to the Airport Police Station, where he was detained for an addition four hours. George claimed that no officers questioned him during that time, nor did any inform him as to why he had been arrested.

Eventually, two agents from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force arrived and questioned him, asking whether he was a member of a “Pro-Islamic” or “communist” group, or whether he had ever met “anyone in his travels who was overtly against the U.S. government.” After questioning him for 30 minutes, the FBI agents determined George was not a threat and released him.

Neither the TSA nor the FBI disputed George’s account of the facts, and Judge McKee ruled that “George’s factual allegations do not establish that [the TSA and FBI agents] violated a Fourth Amendment right.”

“Once TSA Officials were satisfied that George was not armed or carrying explosives, much of the concern that justified his detention dissipated. However, it did not totally vanish or suggest that further inquiry was not warranted,” he wrote.

“Thus, the actions of the TSA Officials corresponded to the level of concern raised by the flashcards.”