Electronic Surveillance, and the Question of Reform
http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=Brookings%20Institution%3A%20Reform%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Intelligence%20Community&link=rtsp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.c%2Dspan.org%2Fproject%2Fter%2Fter052206%5Fintel.rm http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=2
Brookings Institution Panel on the U.S. Intelligence Community
The Brookings Institution hosts a panel on the "Prospects for the U.S. Intelligence Community: The Hayden Nomination, Electronic Surveillance, and the Question of Reform." Speakers include Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); John McLaughlin, Former CIA Director and Candy Crowley, Senior Political Correspondent, CNN. 5/22/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 25 min. Note: This video file may require the latest RealPlayer, which is not available on Windows 95, Mac OS9 or Linux systems.
Commentary
" Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful OZ,..I mean intelligence community,..has spoken."
The Intelligence Committees were established as a result of the Church Senate Committee's exposure of illegal and immoral CIA activities (MKULTRA-CIA mind control research & operations, MHCHAOS-CIA infiltration of the anti-war movement and press, Operation MOCKINGBIRD-CIA control of the mainstream press, CIA assassination programs, CIA sponsored/trained/run torture, illegal bio & chem warfare experiments and use, just to name a few). However well intended by the Church Committee and Congress, the intelligence committees have ended up being a farce and a facade, a behind-closed-doors operation to keep Congress under the thumb of the intelligence community and the voters in the dark.
With the underlying but transparent intent to promote Rep. Jane Harman's reelection bid to the 36th Congressional District against challenger Marcy Winograd, a very unique and revealing broadcast event occurred yesterday on C-SPAN2. In my opinion, Jane Harman is the most critical linchpin in Congress for the national security state's propaganda mechanism to veil and/or justify foreign policy objectives and strategy. That includes maintaining cover for the covert intelligence and military operations and methods necessary to accomplish overt and covert policy objectives. Being the ranking Democrat and purported liberal, she has functioned for years now as the perfect foil for Democrats to hide behind in their allegiance to the national security state and its covert goals (whether people can agree such goals actually serve Israel's security interests or not, but I'm not going to go into that sticky issue here).
In her position as ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee she's in the premier position to characterize or mischaracterize "covert" and overt US policy (and legislation pursued to institute it) in order to manipulate Congresspersons who are not directly brought 'up to speed' through their own private classified intelligence briefings (read: go along, or else). One of the more obvious goals at this panel is to make it appear she was/is against illegal government spying on US citizens and that she is concerned for our civil rights. This is in spite of her promotion and voting for Patriot Acts I & II. Note that her sole remedy for the disregard of our civil rights by the recently "leaked" NSA spying and data collecting operations on US citizens is simply that the FISA laws be complied with. This is f... outrageous. She even calls up that misperceived 'stalwart defender' of our rights, the ACLU, as backup (to understand my concern, read Angus MacKenzie's book, SECRETS: The CIA's War At Home). No doubt, the intelligence community is intent to not lose their 'girl' in Congress, which would happen if Winograd is allowed to "beat" Harman in the June primary in California, even though we can expect the election to be rigged using still-hackable tabulators in LA County. Just to be clear, I'm praying Winograd "wins", regardless - to manifest a 'win' will require a massive precinct by precinct get-out-the-vote operation canvassing ALL registered voters to amass so many votes it would be too obvious to rig it for Harman.
The key to understanding the deception mechanism the intelligence community is engaged in is to realize that Harman herself could be just as effectively misled in her private briefings by the intelligence community as the rest of Congress and the public is through the media. Although in Harman's case, as is the case with the other Intel Committee members, there's no question of their alignment with the Bush/Clinton/Bush foreign policy objectives (as they are led to perceive them). Because of her lawyer smarts and history as such with the State Department analyzing government documents and cases, Harman has functioned as one of the most effective spokespersons for the intelligence community it's ever had. The above are just some of the reasons she was chosen by the intelligence community for this rare panel at Brookings.
As citizens, patriots and human beings, we should at least try to determine what classified objectives, activities and methods the intelligence community would have a need to lie to Harman about or withhold from her...and conversely, what operations and activities they would not have a need to lie to her about, and why. In that regard and most revealingly in this panel, we must identify subtle and not so subtle clues to understand the actual context intelligence community must always maintain a strict "Need To Know" information chain to protect the actual objectives of undercover (infiltration and/or 'sting') operations. Such cover is employed through intel operatives placed in the media across the entire political spectrum of foreign policy deliberation. By necessity, especially for those who use such cover to commit crimes against humanity and the Constitution, the "Need To Share" recommendation concluded by the frauded-up 911 Commission Report and all of the post 911 posturing about such a "need", is by design, nothing more than a fraud. Make no mistake, it is through the deep cover auspices and channels of CIA and military covert operations teams that such 'sting' operations are run -- not to prevent intelligence "catastrophes" from occurring -- but to make sure that they do occur. From the perpetrator's perspective, and those who are behind the policy goals of such crimes, maintaining cover of these ops in perpetuity is paramount. Whether she is actually aware of such crimes or not (IMO, that depends on which crime), Harman is employed in her key position to maintain their cover. This must be considered in our efforts to expose the truth about US government facilitation of the 911 events, among other deep cover operations and how to strategize politically in the months and years ahead. Is everyone clear at least that we can depend on the Clinton/Kerry mold of the Democratic Party to continue to protect the 911 operation?
I would be happy to see a civil online discussion take place about the implications of this Brookings Institution panel discussion and relative issues I've raised. If change-links@yahoogroups.com is not the preferred forum for such a discussion, please reply back with a suggested forum or listserve for people to go to. See list of references below.
Jon Markowitz
Los Angeles
310-588-2428
References regarding Church Committee and FOIA findings:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=79968 http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Secrets_CIAWarAtHome.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SIM311A.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Challenging_System_CTSG.html
Brookings Institution Panel on the U.S. Intelligence Community
The Brookings Institution hosts a panel on the "Prospects for the U.S. Intelligence Community: The Hayden Nomination, Electronic Surveillance, and the Question of Reform." Speakers include Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); John McLaughlin, Former CIA Director and Candy Crowley, Senior Political Correspondent, CNN. 5/22/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 25 min. Note: This video file may require the latest RealPlayer, which is not available on Windows 95, Mac OS9 or Linux systems.
Commentary
" Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful OZ,..I mean intelligence community,..has spoken."
The Intelligence Committees were established as a result of the Church Senate Committee's exposure of illegal and immoral CIA activities (MKULTRA-CIA mind control research & operations, MHCHAOS-CIA infiltration of the anti-war movement and press, Operation MOCKINGBIRD-CIA control of the mainstream press, CIA assassination programs, CIA sponsored/trained/run torture, illegal bio & chem warfare experiments and use, just to name a few). However well intended by the Church Committee and Congress, the intelligence committees have ended up being a farce and a facade, a behind-closed-doors operation to keep Congress under the thumb of the intelligence community and the voters in the dark.
With the underlying but transparent intent to promote Rep. Jane Harman's reelection bid to the 36th Congressional District against challenger Marcy Winograd, a very unique and revealing broadcast event occurred yesterday on C-SPAN2. In my opinion, Jane Harman is the most critical linchpin in Congress for the national security state's propaganda mechanism to veil and/or justify foreign policy objectives and strategy. That includes maintaining cover for the covert intelligence and military operations and methods necessary to accomplish overt and covert policy objectives. Being the ranking Democrat and purported liberal, she has functioned for years now as the perfect foil for Democrats to hide behind in their allegiance to the national security state and its covert goals (whether people can agree such goals actually serve Israel's security interests or not, but I'm not going to go into that sticky issue here).
In her position as ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee she's in the premier position to characterize or mischaracterize "covert" and overt US policy (and legislation pursued to institute it) in order to manipulate Congresspersons who are not directly brought 'up to speed' through their own private classified intelligence briefings (read: go along, or else). One of the more obvious goals at this panel is to make it appear she was/is against illegal government spying on US citizens and that she is concerned for our civil rights. This is in spite of her promotion and voting for Patriot Acts I & II. Note that her sole remedy for the disregard of our civil rights by the recently "leaked" NSA spying and data collecting operations on US citizens is simply that the FISA laws be complied with. This is f... outrageous. She even calls up that misperceived 'stalwart defender' of our rights, the ACLU, as backup (to understand my concern, read Angus MacKenzie's book, SECRETS: The CIA's War At Home). No doubt, the intelligence community is intent to not lose their 'girl' in Congress, which would happen if Winograd is allowed to "beat" Harman in the June primary in California, even though we can expect the election to be rigged using still-hackable tabulators in LA County. Just to be clear, I'm praying Winograd "wins", regardless - to manifest a 'win' will require a massive precinct by precinct get-out-the-vote operation canvassing ALL registered voters to amass so many votes it would be too obvious to rig it for Harman.
The key to understanding the deception mechanism the intelligence community is engaged in is to realize that Harman herself could be just as effectively misled in her private briefings by the intelligence community as the rest of Congress and the public is through the media. Although in Harman's case, as is the case with the other Intel Committee members, there's no question of their alignment with the Bush/Clinton/Bush foreign policy objectives (as they are led to perceive them). Because of her lawyer smarts and history as such with the State Department analyzing government documents and cases, Harman has functioned as one of the most effective spokespersons for the intelligence community it's ever had. The above are just some of the reasons she was chosen by the intelligence community for this rare panel at Brookings.
As citizens, patriots and human beings, we should at least try to determine what classified objectives, activities and methods the intelligence community would have a need to lie to Harman about or withhold from her...and conversely, what operations and activities they would not have a need to lie to her about, and why. In that regard and most revealingly in this panel, we must identify subtle and not so subtle clues to understand the actual context intelligence community must always maintain a strict "Need To Know" information chain to protect the actual objectives of undercover (infiltration and/or 'sting') operations. Such cover is employed through intel operatives placed in the media across the entire political spectrum of foreign policy deliberation. By necessity, especially for those who use such cover to commit crimes against humanity and the Constitution, the "Need To Share" recommendation concluded by the frauded-up 911 Commission Report and all of the post 911 posturing about such a "need", is by design, nothing more than a fraud. Make no mistake, it is through the deep cover auspices and channels of CIA and military covert operations teams that such 'sting' operations are run -- not to prevent intelligence "catastrophes" from occurring -- but to make sure that they do occur. From the perpetrator's perspective, and those who are behind the policy goals of such crimes, maintaining cover of these ops in perpetuity is paramount. Whether she is actually aware of such crimes or not (IMO, that depends on which crime), Harman is employed in her key position to maintain their cover. This must be considered in our efforts to expose the truth about US government facilitation of the 911 events, among other deep cover operations and how to strategize politically in the months and years ahead. Is everyone clear at least that we can depend on the Clinton/Kerry mold of the Democratic Party to continue to protect the 911 operation?
I would be happy to see a civil online discussion take place about the implications of this Brookings Institution panel discussion and relative issues I've raised. If change-links@yahoogroups.com is not the preferred forum for such a discussion, please reply back with a suggested forum or listserve for people to go to. See list of references below.
Jon Markowitz
Los Angeles
310-588-2428
References regarding Church Committee and FOIA findings:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=79968 http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Secrets_CIAWarAtHome.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SIM311A.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Challenging_System_CTSG.html
Omega - 24. May, 15:38
