Snowden leak exposes US plan to spy on foreign businesses for profit

Screen Shot 2014-09-05 at 8.33.11 PM

A 2009 intelligence document provided to journalists by former government contractor Edward Snowden suggests the United States weighed someday conducting espionage to prevent losing its economic prowess to other countries.

The document, published first by The Intercept on Friday this week, outlines tactics the American intelligence community may implement in the future in the event of certain scenarios, including one in which “the United States’ technological and innovative edge slips” in the year 2025.

In the event that the US may lose that advantage, the Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review’s final report reads in part, then “a multi-pronged, systematic effort to gather open source and proprietary information through overt means, clandestine penetration (through physical and cyber means) and counterintelligence” could be undertaken by American agencies.

The document, classified as “secret” and supplied along with a trove of other files provided by Snowden,“is a fascinating window into the mindset of America’s spies as they identify future threats to the US and lay out the actions the US intelligence community should take in response,” wrote Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept editor who wrote about the 32-page report this week.

Indeed, David Shredd, then the deputy director of national intelligence, opens the report by describing it as the results of a 10-month study conducted among experts from agencies, academia, think tanks and industry tasked with assessing the implications of the year 2025 for the American intelligence community, or IC.

“If one does not consider the long-range future, one will never cease to be surprised,” Shredd wrote. “QICR 2009 developed alternative future scenarios based on Global Trends 2025 to explore concepts and capabilities the IC may need to fulfill critical missions in support of US national security.”

The contents of the report, Shredd added, “does not purport that any one future will materialize, but rather outlines a range of plausible futures so that the IC can best posture itself to meet the range of challenges it may face.” Speaking to The Intercept, a spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the report “is not intended to be, and is not, a reflection of current policy or operations.”

Jeffrey Anchukaitis, the DNI spokesperson, told Greenwald that “the United States — unlike our adversaries—does not steal proprietary corporate information to further private American companies’ bottom lines,” and that “the Intelligence Community regularly engages in analytic exercises to identify potential future global environments, and how the IC could help the United States Government respond.”

Nevertheless, the report contains potential plans of action that run counter to previous public admissions made by IC leaders.

“What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of — or give intelligence we collect to—US companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line,” Greenwald quoted Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as saying previously.

“But asecret 2009 report issued by Clapper’s own officeexplicitly contemplates doing exactly that,” the journalist wrote this week.

“The IC would need the ability to access proprietary sources of information in permissive environments such as foreign universities, industry trade shows and government conferences,” part of the report reads. “This could include cooperating US students, professors and researchers reporting bits of non-public information that by themselves are not sensitive, but in aggregate could help the IC make inferences about breakthrough technological innovations. The key challenge would be working closely with the academic and scientific communities (which would include non-US persons), gaining trust and monitoring potential ‘threats’ while continuing to advance US scientific progress.”

According to the document, human spies and cyber operations alike have been considered as possible tools to implement if spying on foreign targets — and not just students and innovators, but entire research and development operations, as well—is needed to be done in 11 years’ time.

“In denied or more restrictive environments such as state-supported R&D centers, the IC would continue to apply human intelligence (HUMINT) tradecraft and employ HUMINT-enabled close access collection. This would include recruitment of sources and assets, and provision of appropriate technical means to acquire and exfiltrate sensitive information,” reads one part of the document.

Elsewhere, the document’s authors detail one end goal: “Technology acquisition by all means.”

“Exfiltrating intelligence from non-permissive environments will be crucial. A critical enabler would be covert communications with a negligible forward footprint. US intelligence officers and sensitive sources will need to move data in an unattributable and undetected way, sometimes from within commercial entities possessing great technical prowess and robust cyber and electronic security protective procedures. Although the likely advent of transnational, high-bandwidth wireless communications services will offer an environment with ‘lots to hide behind,’ it will also contain many highly competent, and potentially antagonistic, actors.”

An illustrate example included in part of the report provides exactly how such a hypothetical situation may play out: “The IC makes separate clandestine approaches to India and Russia to break up the partnership. It conducts cyber operations against research facilities in the two countries, as well as the intellectual ‘supply chain’ supporting these facilities. Finally, it assesses whether and how its findings would be useful to US industry.”

“Using covert cyber operations to pilfer ‘proprietary information’ and then determining how it ‘would be useful to US industry’ is precisely what the US government has been vehemently insisting it does not do,” Greenwald wrote, “even though for years it has officially prepared to do precisely that.”

Obama Unveils New Opaque ISIS Strategy, No Real Action Offered

By Joseph R. Carducci
September 3, 2014

As with almost everything else our community organizer in chief has been doing these days, his recently unveiled ISIS strategy is very opaque. In fact, he STILL doesn’t have any answers that would satisfy any intelligent person who understands anything about the real threat this group of terrorists poses to the United States and other Western countries.

In response to those who claim he doesn’t have any type of viable strategy to deal with ISIS, Obama spoke during a press conference while in Eastern Europe. He wanted to assure everyone that justice would be served for the beheading of Steven Sotloff, the second American journalist to suffer this fate in recent days. Our own Muslim in Chief also said that ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, must be ‘destroyed.’

Fine, but all of this only goes so far. While words certainly do mean things, unless they are backed up with solid action, it might not mean much. Obama claims he is going to be working on this problem together with ‘coalition forces’ in order to turn ISIS into a ‘manageable problem.’ Maybe he was shamed into such a poor strategy after seeing that even David Cameron has an ISIS plan. More from our wonderful leader:

“We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem…Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.”

Obama Talks the Talk

This is clearly one of the first times our Obama has even admitted that ISIS is a problem. It’s also interesting he is using the other title of the group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (which includes Syria, Lebanon and Israel). Never mind the fact that Obama offered no hard plans to actually do anything, other than talk. Simply working with coalition forces, Mr. Obama, is not going to destroy ISIS financing. After all, they currently hold a huge and growing number of oil fields and other assets, to the tune of a $2 million per day in income.

Obama, our Liar in Chief, is also talking out of both sides of his mouth here. If ISIS is a real threat then why is he talking about simply managing their threat, rather than taking action to destroy them as should be done with an enemy that wants to see us and our children dead? On top of all that, he is only going to take any action at all (mediocre and weak as it may be) if the international community gives their support! I suppose that year of daily ISIS briefings has done absolutely no good after all.

ISIS in the US

This is just sad. I can’t imagine President Reagan ever talking like this about the old Soviet Union, or any other threat to our country. Or even Bush. Heck, even Clinton wouldn’t have been this much of a wimp. This comes on top of news that former CIA operatives and tactical intelligence professionals, those who are on the ground every day collecting details and hard evidence, are sure ISIS is already in the United States…and that they are capable of carrying out an attack.

The big surprise (or NOT, if you have been reading my reports) is that they also think these terrorists have entered our country through the open southern border with Mexico. So, thanks again to Obama and his amazing immigration policies. Another possible source of infiltration is through US airports, entering on actual American passports. Even still, the State Department won’t tell us if they are revoking the passports of those Americans who have been confirmed to be working with ISIS overseas.

So, what do YOU think? Are you ready for some ISIS terror attacks on US soil? How about an actual invasion, from both within and without (admittedly much less likely, but if the group continues strengthening this could very well be possible in the not too distant future)? How about Obama’s desire to grant ALL illegals amnesty and work permits and even residency in the US?

INSTEAD OF MONITORING ISIS, OBAMA SPIED ON AMERICANS

Former Pentagon official reveals President has been given “granular” intelligence on rise of terror group for over a year

Capture

by STEVE WATSON | INFOWARS.COM | SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

The always insightful libertarian commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano had some choice words for the President Tuesday as it emerged that Obama has been receiving detailed security briefings on the rise of ISIS for over a year, but failed to formulate any strategy to deal with the terrorist group.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Napolitano did not mince his words:

“The President is more concerned with wanting to know what Americans are doing, rather than dispatching our intelligence agencies to find out what people who really can cause us harm are doing.” he said, noting that the activity the NSA has undertaken “doesn’t keep us safe, it keeps us less free.”

“There are two disregards for the Constitution.” Napolitano added, explaining “One is spying on innocent Americans without any evidence of criminal activity… the other is failing to keep us safe by allowing an entity the size and the magnitude and the ferocity of ISIS to develop without any resistance.”

The claims that Obama has been getting “detailed and specific” intelligence about the rise of ISIS in his daily briefings for at least a year, comes from an anonymous former Pentagon official who claims to be fearful of the lack of action the administration has been taking on the matter.

“This is getting bad,” the source told Fox News, claiming that the White House had been repeatedly hesitant and, regarding the effort to rescue the now murdered US journalists at the hands of ISIS, continually asked for “the intelligence to build up more,” despite it being strong and “granular” in detail.

By Obama’s own admission, up until this week, there has been “no strategy” to deal with ISIS, an entity he personally dismissed in April, describing the group as the “jayvee” squad.

The fact that the President refuses to be briefed by advisors, and prefers to read the intelligence updates alone, has led some to question whether he has missed or skipped over vital information.

The Fox report reads “The former Pentagon official, who has knowledge of the process, said Obama generally was not known to come back to the intelligence community with further requests for information based on the daily report.”

Referring to the claims that the government has had detailed intelligence on ISIS for some time, Judge Napolitano said “Either they did or they didn’t, and if they did, they can’t claim surprise.”

“If they didn’t, it’s because they have dispatched 60,000 agents to spy on Americans in the United States of America, instead of on these monsters as they started to acquire more wealth and more of our former military equipment.” Napolitano urged.

“So for the government to say ‘oh, all of a sudden ISIS is here’, either the government is not doing its job, or the government is lying to us.” the judicial analyst concluded.

EX-CIA OFFICIAL PROPOSES ASSASSINATION OF PUTIN

Screen Shot 2014-08-28 at 8.00.35 PM

Former intelligence official wants sanctions against Russia to lead to the removal of Putin, “with a bullet hole in the back of his head” if necessary

by KIT DANIELS | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 28, 2014

In a recent op-ed, a former CIA official suggested the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin, by assassination if necessary, should be the primary objective of the Obama administration in its strategy for Ukraine.

Herbert E. Meyer, who served as a Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan administration, said the goal of U.S. sanctions against Russia “should be to get the Russians who’ve been keeping Putin in power, or tolerating Putin in power, to throw that knockout punch.”

“If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us,” he stated.

To ensure Putin’s removal, Meyer suggested, the Obama administration should strike a wedge between the Russian business elite and the Kremlin that could serve as a catalyst for an attempt on Putin’s life.

“That’s why the sanctions will work if the president and his European counterparts will keep tightening the screws; if they keep making commerce more difficult for Russia’s serious business executives, for instance by blocking their access to capital, and if they keep making life more miserable for Russia’s playboy oligarchs, for instance by canceling their credit cards and denying landing rights to their private jets,” he added. “And if the president and European leaders keep telling these Russians – bluntly and publicly – that all this will end the moment Vladimir Putin leaves the Kremlin for good.”

The former CIA official is describing a centuries-old tool of statecraft in which a foreign power creates discontent between the nobles of another country and their ruler to ensure the eventual overthrow of that ruler.

But given today’s explosive increase in tensions between Russia and Ukraine, which could very well lead to another world war, Meyer’s suggestion is particularly disturbing considering is it likely that current Western intelligence officials also share similar views.

And the destabilization of the Russian government with the loss of Putin will only create chaos in the East, chaos which can be exploited by the global financial elite who hold no allegiance to any nationality.

“Every major international crisis for the past century or more has ended with an even greater consolidation of world power into the hands of the few, and this is no accident,” journalist Brandon Smith wrote.