policy

EXCLUSIVE: Such Critical Infrastructures: FBI feeds Anonymous IRC channels to CIA, Pentagon intel, NSA, NORTHCOM in 2012 Intel memo

An FBI "IIR" intelligence report, dated April 12 2012 entitled "Identification of Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Channels Used by Anonymous Members, as of 12 April 2012" surfaces a dicey realm between US military & intelligence and electronic activists. The full report is at scribd.com/doc/246922867/FBI-FOIA-IRC-Chat-Channels-used-by-Anonymous // (Mobile) /// UPDATE: Upvote this post on Reddit & Thanks to YAN for amplifying!

FBI FOIA IRC Chat Channels used by Anonymous by Smiley Hill

A tiny peek into a huge deal: the potential fracas between assorted would-be American military cyberwar commandoes and international (and domestic!) computer activists. This lower-level report (Unclassified//For Official Use Only) (U//FOUO) perhaps is more interesting for its "metadata" rather than thoroughly censored content. Below I also included some other domestic military operations documents below to draw a wider context than just this "cyberwar" stuff, as Ferguson has prompted Gov. Nixon in Missouri to activate the state militia, it's good to read up on what federal legal doctrine for "civil disturbances" is.

fbi-iir1.png
fbi-iir2.png
fbi-iir3.png

Such recipients: In order, it says it is from "DIRECTOR FBI" to:

All FBI field offices

INFO AFOSI DET 331 Andrews AFB Maryland, Headquarters Air Force Office of Special Investigations (also cited in this case http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/homeland_defense/intelligence/EFF_vs_DOD_Bates_997_1096.pdf )

CDR USSTRATCOM Offutt AFB Nebraska, Strategic Command commander

CDR USTRANSCOM Scott AFB Illinois, United States Transportation Command commander

CDR1STIO Ft Belvoir Virginia, First Information Operations Command commander - https://www.1stiocmd.army.mil/ (wat? "CDR1STIO" pops in a bunch of other FOIA'd IIRs as well if you googlize it)

CIA WASHINGTON DC - always down for a good time

DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC - yes, this hot info wasn't stovepiped away from rivals

DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC - fetching banhammer

DEPT OF STATE WASHINGTON DC

DIA WASHINGTON DC - Defense Intelligence Agency which is huge and low profile - http://www.dia.mil/

DIRNAVCRIMINVSERV - Probably HEADQUARTERS. NAVAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.

DNI WASHINGTON DC - Director of National Intelligence. (Clapper at the time)

HQ AFOSI Andrews AFB Maryland - Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Tip, if you have some message for them, use their unencrypted contact form to let them know about fraud or etc. What could possibly go wrong? > http://www.osi.af.mil/main/contactus.asp

HQ NORAD USNORTHCOM INTEL PETERSON AFB - US Northern Command located near Colorado Springs was created as Dept of Homeland Security's military counterpart for "Homeland Defense", an elastic concept extending Pentagon involvement with "critical infrastructure," namely the machinery of major corporations. They also revised "GARDEN PLOT" into CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations," relevant in a Ferguson type context under federal mobilization. (see 2010 story) They were also written into Superman's plot.

JOINT STAFF Washington DC - J2 - Director for Intelligence (J2) on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (now this guy)

JWAC DAHLGREN Virginia - Joint Warfare Analysis Center a "premier science and engineering institution" under Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), which also hosts Cyber Command. see http://www.stratcom.mil/functional_components/

NGA HQ Bethesda Maryland. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, like DIA, is up to a lot of things off the radar. They have domestic satellite spying (GEO INT) responsibilities at National Special Security Events which require a special domestic military intel privacy waiver. http://www.stratcom.mil/functional_components/ . Big spenders.

NSA FT GEORGE G MEADE Maryland - National Security Agency at the oddly spelled out Ft Meade. I wonder how many land in this inbox - and how many times "George G" is stored in their databases.

US SECRET SERVICE WASHINGTON DC

USCYBERCOM FT GEORGE G MEADE Maryland - Cyber Command in ur router, sniffin ur packets

WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM WASHINGTON DC.

BT . … I am fairly sure this is a closing list tag like </UL>

////

Serial IIR 4 213 4003 12, "WARNING (U): This is an information report, not finally evaluated intelligence. It is being shared for informational purposes but has not been fully evaluated, integrated with other information, interpreted or analyzed. Receiving agencies are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI. Unless a conviction in a criminal proceeding occurs, a presumption of innocence exists for any person being reported on in this IIR." Declassification date appears 20370607, as this hot stuff needs to lay low for a couple more decades.

What is an IIR? It is pretty low level stuff for the FBI. For a bit of info see FBI Intelligence Information Report Handbook | Electronic Frontier Foundation. That document interestingly, at the very end includes a statutory info pipeline from Grand Jury operations to various feds. Patriot Act Section 203(a)(1)( C )(i)(V) certainly makes for an industrious star chamber circuit, but they don't want grand jury info going out in IIRs without asking the HQ attorney.

This document was obtained by Smiley Hill via FOIA. Please follow https://twitter.com/smilyus for more smileable FOIAs on a regular basis.

////

The use of the military - and these contractors in the game now - to police corporate systems labeled as Critical Infrastructure is significant. After all, Missouri Gov Nixon just activated the state militia because of Ferguson.

ferguson-crop2.png ferguson-crop1.png

In the recent FBI writeup freeking out about Ferguson protesters, I took the "critical infrastructure" references to allude to authorizing military activity around corporate electronic assets that might get poked at by angry activists.

“The announcement of the grand jury’s decision … will likely be exploited by some individuals to justify threats and attacks against law enforcement and critical infrastructure,” the FBI says in an intelligence bulletin issued in recent days. “This also poses a threat to those civilians engaged in lawful or otherwise constitutionally protected activities.”

fergusoncrop.png

////

Background on Executive Order 13636:

See NSA's cybersecurity program to protect critical infrastructure revealed - Military & Aerospace Electronics

Feb 2013: Executive Order -- Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity | The White House

CRS analysis on Executive Order: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42984.pdf

Feb 2013: Pentagon will require security standards for critical infrastructure networks - Nextgov.com

This is actually a word? Cyberinfrastructure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nov 2012: Cyber Order Puts DHS In Charge Of Oversight, Sets Deadlines « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

USA TODAY: Feb 2013: Cybersecurity executive order fosters information sharing for greater good

As for the legal ramifications of domestic military operations and targeting electronic activists with tools like STRATCOM / CYBERCOM retain for battling Al Qaeda servers or whatever, most people say "But, Posse Comitatus!" In reality a vast area of domestic military operations has been expanded and operated by JAGs. See : www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2012.pdf

This Domestic Operational Law Cyber Realm has a Handbook, People!

DomesticOperationalLaw2011.png

The domestic version of this JAG manual is extremely recommended reading for everyone. See Domestic Operational Law Handbook for Judge Advocates 2011 | Public Intelligence.

Also the newer 248 page Domestic Operational Law Handbook for Judge Advocates 2013 | Public Intelligence is available. You will definitely know moar about WTF is up with weird meshes of civilian/military authority in the US by skimming over this.

PI highlighted a bunch of good 2011 stuff, since we are talking Ferguson anyway, it's worth noting again:

G. The Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plans

Formerly, DoD’s Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO) plan was known as “GARDEN PLOT.” Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and USNORTHCOM however, DoD has delegated to geographic combatant commanders responsibility for developing CDO Contingency Plans (CONPLANs). These geographic commanders’ CONPLANs provide guidance and direction for planning, coordinating, and executing military operations during domestic civil disturbances.

1. Civil Disturbance Operations Mission

Broadly stated, the CDO mission assists civil authorities in restoring law and order in the United States and its territories.58 This mission statement, while not duplicating the language in the Insurrection Act allowing for the use of federal forces to “suppress” insurrection, provides wide latitude to the President to use federal forces to assist civil law enforcement in “restoring” law and order.

The restoration of law and order must be distinguished from the preservation of law and order. CDO mission statements do not allow the joint civil disturbance task force commander to undertake preservation missions. It is generally agreed that missions to restore law and order include dispersing unauthorized assemblages, patrolling disturbed areas, maintaining essential transportation and communications systems, setting up roadblocks, and cordoning off areas. Care should be taken before a military commander accepts missions that are routine maintenance of civil order.

2. Combatant Commanders’ CONPLANs

The CONPLANs provide the basis for all preparation, deployment, employment, and redeployment of Department of Defense component forces, including National Guard forces called to active federal service, for use in domestic civil disturbance operations, in support of civil authorities as directed by the President. The concept of a civil disturbance operation is multi-phased: Phase 0, Shape; Phase I, Anticipate; Phase II, Respond (deployment can occur in either Phase I or Phase II); Phase III, Operate; Phase IV, Stabilize; and Phase V, Transition (redeployment). Prior to deployment, military forces maintain five preparedness postures, called Civil Disturbance Conditions (CIDCONS) in order to alert and react to potential civil disturbance operations. Changes in the CIDCON level are directed by the JDOMS.

3. The Standing Rules for the Use of Force for U.S. Forces

Civil disturbance operations are conducted in accordance with Appendix L of the Standing Rules of Engagement/Standing Rules for the Use of Force for U.S. Forces (SRUF). Guidance on how and when forces can use force in a CDO mission are detailed in that annex. Although the CJCSI is classified, Annex L is not and can be shared with our mission partners.

a. Custody and Detention

All apprehensions should be made by the civil police force unless they are not available or require assistance. Military forces have the authority to detain rioters, looters, or other civilians committing criminal offenses. Civilians taken into custody should be transferred to civilian law enforcement authorities as soon as possible.

All members of the force must remember that state and federal criminal law and procedure govern apprehension. Apprehension is justified only on the basis of probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person to be apprehended committed the offense. Soldiers should not question detainees beyond basic pedigree such as name and address. If formal questioning of an offender is necessary, civilian police should conduct the interview. If civilian police are not available, CID agents or military police may conduct interviews only if the interview is essential to the civil disturbance mission. Actions taken by Soldiers that do not conform to criminal law constitutional standards could jeopardize future prosecution and subject Soldiers and their Commanders to criminal and/or civil liability.

b. Search and Seizure

CDO CONPLANs anticipate that military forces will generally not be involved in searches unless there is “an immediate danger of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape of violent persons unless the search is conducted without delay.” In all other cases, local authorities should conduct searches. When required to perform searches, federal armed forces may conduct warrantless searches under the same constitutional parameters imposed upon law enforcement officials. Joint Civil Disturbance Task Force forces conducting a warrantless search will fully document the reasons for the search as soon as is reasonably convenient.69 Generally these searches are limited to the following incidents.

(1) Stop and Frisk

If there is a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, that person may be temporarily stopped and questioned about his activities. The stop must be limited in duration to that which is reasonably necessary to investigate the suspicion. If there is a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that a person is armed or is carrying instruments of violence and that the individual presents an immediate risk of harm, members of the armed force may conduct a “frisk” (an external “patdown” of the clothing) for weapons. Any weapons found during a frisk may be removed from the individual and seized.

(2) Search Incident to Lawful Apprehension

A person lawfully detained may be searched for weapons or destructible evidence. A search for weapons or destructible evidence may also be conducted in the area where the detained person could reach with a sudden movement to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence.

(3) Exigent circumstances

Military forces assisting law enforcement may make a search without a warrant when they have reason to believe (probable cause) that weapons, objects related to criminal activity, or persons believed to have committed an offense, are in the place to be searched; and they have reason to believe that the delay necessary to obtain a search warrant would result in removal of the weapons or destruction of the objects related to criminal activity. For example, Joint Civil Disturbance Task Force forces may stop and search an automobile without a warrant when there is reason to believe that the automobile contains weapons or instruments of violence and/or contains an individual reasonably believed to have committed violence.

(4) Emergency

Military forces in a civil disturbance operation may make an immediate entry into a building when there is reason to believe that entry is necessary to prevent injury to persons, serious damage to property, loss of evidence, to protect public safety, or to render aid to someone who is in danger.

(5) Hot pursuit

Military forces pursuing a person who they have reason to believe has just committed a serious crime, may enter a vehicle or building believed to be entered by the suspect and search the building or vehicle for the person or any weapons that might be used to further his escape.

(6) Plain View

During the course of otherwise lawful activity, military forces may seize any unlawful weapons or objects related to criminal activity which they observe in plain view. When conducting warrantless searches that require a probable cause determination, military forces can obtain advice from a judge advocate; however, the probable cause determination must be made personally by the individual desiring to conduct the search.

If a search warrant is required, local civil authorities should obtain judicially issued search warrants. If local civilian authorities are not available, judge advocates need to be prepared to provide advice on probable cause to military authorities before they approach a local judge or magistrate for a search warrant.

When feasible, all searches conducted by military personnel will be conducted by two personnel with the actual search performed by someone of the same sex.76 A hand receipt or some similar document should be prepared when items of personal property are seized from an individual.

c. Confinement Facilities

The Joint Civil Disturbance Task Force should not operate a detention facility. Any person apprehended should be turned over to the police for detention. Military correctional facilities cannot be used to detain civilians. If available civilian detention facilities cannot accommodate the number of detained persons who are awaiting arraignment, the Joint Civil Disturbance Task Force commander must seek the approval of the SCRAG and Combatant Commander to set up a temporary detention facility.

Should the Task Force be required to operate a detention facility, the detention facility standards and operations should conform, to the maximum extent possible, to current DoD confinement facility operations and will be under the professional supervision and control of Military Police personnel. The establishment and operation of military detention facilities is a temporary expedient and is authorized only until such time as the custody of detained persons can be transferred to civil authorities.

d. Riot Control Agents

Normally, for CDO the deployment and use of riot control agents is allowed as a matter of U.S. policy. However, initial approval authority for its deployment and use may be retained at a level higher than the Joint Civil Disturbance Task Force Commander and may require a specific request.

This is not the same as a state-level activation, but it is the doctrine that is crafted at the federal level these days so I think it's pretty relevant to Ferguson.

timthumb.png

The federal government hasn't taken kindly to people that expose these types of relationships. Barrett Brown's sentencing just got delayed again - but at least the Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Jail is awesome. For more info FreeBarrettBrown.org.

Terrible proposed shield law spells doom for journalists, in particular me :[

mediashieldlawdifi.jpg

Here is some horrible news. I am inquiring further since of course it's people like me that this is intended to chill and/or enable grand juries to throw in prison without charges…. I have put in inquiries with MN Sens. Klobuchar and Franken offices to determine if they believe reporters should be divided into classes, and what is the deal with grand juries here and etc.

Full report by Kevin Gosztola, another non-journalist: Media Shield Law, Which Aims to Protect Only ‘Real Reporters,’ Moves Onward to the Senate | The Dissenter

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation that would establish a federal shield law for reporters or journalists in the United States. The legislation was amended, before passing out of committee, to define who would be a “covered journalist” under the proposed shield legislation.

The proposed shield legislation, the Free of Flow of Information Act of 2013, was introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer as news of the Justice Department seizing an overly broad set of the Associated Press’ phone records for a leak investigation and of an FBI agent labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen an “aider, abettor and co-conspirator” in a leak investigation were making headlines. However, there is nothing immediately obvious in the proposed media shield that would protect the press from an agency in government committing those kind of abuses. It would not protect someone like New York Times reporter James Risen, who the administration of President Barack Obama has tried to force to testify against his source in a leak case despite protest from media organizations.[….]

MOAR: Why Sen. Feinstein Is Wrong About Who’s a “Real Reporter” | Electronic Frontier Foundation && Why “Members of the News Media” Should Welcome a Shield for the Act of Journalism | emptywheel

PASSED SENATE JUDICIARY: Text of S. 987: Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us

S 987 IS

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 987

To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 16, 2013

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Free Flow of Information Act of 2013’.

SEC. 2. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COVERED PERSONS.

(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure- In any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to comply with a subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process seeking to compel the disclosure of protected information, unless a Federal court in the jurisdiction where the subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process has been or would be issued determines, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to such covered person--

(1) that the party seeking to compel disclosure of the protected information has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources (other than a covered person) of the protected information; and

(2) that--

(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution--

(i) if the party seeking to compel disclosure is the Federal Government, based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered person, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred;

(ii) based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered person, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the protected information sought is essential to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution;

(iii) the Attorney General certifies that the decision to request compelled disclosure was made in a manner consistent with section 50.10 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, if compelled disclosure is sought by a member of the Department of Justice in circumstances governed by section 50.10 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(iv) the covered person has not established by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure of the protected information would be contrary to the public interest, taking into account both the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue and maintaining the free flow of information and the public interest in compelling disclosure (including the extent of any harm to national security); or

(B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered person--

(i) the protected information sought is essential to the resolution of the matter; and

(ii) the party seeking to compel disclosure of the protected information has established that the interest in compelling disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue and maintaining the free flow of information.

(b) Limitations on Content of Information- A subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process seeking to compel the disclosure of protected information under subsection (a) shall, to the extent possible, be narrowly tailored in purpose, subject matter, and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information.

SEC. 3. EXCEPTION RELATING TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

(a) In General- Section 2 shall not apply to any information, record, document, or item obtained as the result of the eyewitness observations of, or obtained during the course of, alleged criminal conduct by the covered person, including any physical evidence or visual or audio recording of the conduct.

(b) Exception- This section shall not apply, and, subject to sections 4 and 5, section 2 shall apply, if the alleged criminal conduct is the act of communicating the documents or information at issue.

SEC. 4. EXCEPTION TO PREVENT DEATH, KIDNAPPING, SUBSTANTIAL BODILY INJURY, SEX OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, OR INCAPACITATION OR DESTRUCTION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

Section 2 shall not apply to any protected information that is reasonably necessary to stop, prevent, or mitigate a specific case of--

(1) death;

(2) kidnapping;

(3) substantial bodily harm;

(4) conduct that constitutes a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor (as those terms are defined in section 111 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911)), or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a criminal offense; or

(5) incapacitation or destruction of critical infrastructure (as defined in section 1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e))).

SEC. 5. EXCEPTION TO PREVENT TERRORIST ACTIVITY OR HARM TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY.

(a) In General- Section 2 shall not apply to any protected information if--

(1) the party seeking to compel disclosure is the Federal Government; and

(2)(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution of the allegedly unlawful disclosure of properly classified information, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected information for which compelled disclosure is sought would materially assist the Federal Government in preventing or mitigating--

(i) an act of terrorism; or

(ii) other acts that are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security; or

(B) in any other criminal investigation or prosecution, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected information for which compelled disclosure is sought would materially assist the Federal Government in preventing, mitigating, or identifying the perpetrator of--

(i) an act of terrorism; or

(ii) other acts that have caused or are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security.

(b) Deference- In assessing the existence or extent of the harm described in subsection (a), a Federal court shall give appropriate deference to a specific factual showing submitted to the court by the head of any executive branch agency or department concerned.

(c) Relationship to Section 2- Subsection (a) shall not apply, and, subject to sections 3 and 4, section 2 shall apply, to any criminal investigation or prosecution of the allegedly unlawful disclosure of properly classified information other than one in which the protected information is sought by the Federal Government to prevent or mitigate the harm specified in subsection (a)(2)(A). In considering the extent of any harm to national security when applying section 2 to such cases, a Federal court shall give appropriate deference to any specific factual showing submitted to the court by the head of any executive branch agency or department concerned.

(d) Subsequent Unlawful Disclosure- The potential for a subsequent unlawful disclosure of information by the source sought to be identified shall not, by itself and without any showing of additional facts beyond such potential disclosure, be sufficient to establish that compelled disclosure of the protected information would materially assist the Federal Government in preventing or mitigating--

(1) an act of terrorism; or

(2) other acts that are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security.

SEC. 6. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), if any document or other information from the account of a person who is known to be, or reasonably likely to be, a covered person is sought from a communications service provider, sections 2 through 5 shall apply in the same manner that such sections apply to any document or other information sought from a covered person.

(2) EXCEPTION- If any document or other information from the account of a person who is known to be, or reasonably likely to be, a covered person is sought from a communications service provider under section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, the provisions of sections 2 through 5 governing criminal investigations and prosecutions shall apply in the same manner that such sections apply to any document or other information sought from a covered person in the course of a criminal investigation or prosecution, except that clauses (i) and (iii) of section 2(a)(2)(A) and the phrase ‘particularly with reference to directly establishing guilt or innocence’ in section 2(a)(2)(A)(ii) shall not apply.

(b) Notice and Opportunity Provided to Covered Persons- A Federal court may compel the disclosure of a document or other information described in this section only after the covered person from whose account the document or other information is sought has been given--

(1) notice from the party seeking the document or other information through a subpoena or other compulsory request, not later than the time at which such subpoena or request is issued to the communications service provider; and

(2) an opportunity to be heard before the court before compelling testimony or the disclosure of a document.

(c) Exception to Notice Requirement- Notice under subsection (b)(1) may be delayed for not more than 45 days if the Federal court involved determines by clear and convincing evidence that such notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation, a national security investigation, or intelligence gathering, or that exigent circumstances exist. This period may be extended by the court for an additional period of not more than 45 days each time the court makes such a determination.

(d) Notice to Communications Service Provider- In all cases in which notice is required to be provided to the covered person under this section, a copy of such notice shall be provided simultaneously to the communications service provider from whom disclosure is sought. Once it has received such notice, the communications service provider shall not comply with the request for disclosure unless and until disclosure is either ordered by the court or authorized in writing by the covered person.

SEC. 7. SOURCES AND WORK PRODUCT PRODUCED WITHOUT PROMISE OR AGREEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY.

Nothing in this Act shall supersede, dilute, or preclude any law or court decision compelling or not compelling disclosure by a covered person or communications service provider of--

(1) information identifying a source who provided information without a promise or agreement of confidentiality made by the covered person as part of engaging in journalism; or

(2) records, other information, or contents of a communication obtained without a promise or agreement that such records, other information, or contents of a communication would be confidential.

SEC. 8. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND APPEAL.

(a) Conditions for Ex Parte Review or Submissions Under Seal- With regard to any determination made by a Federal court under this Act, upon a showing of good cause, that Federal court may receive and consider submissions from the parties in camera or under seal, and if the court determines it is necessary, ex parte.

(b) Contempt of Court- With regard to any determination made by a Federal court under this Act, a Federal court may find a covered person to be in civil or criminal contempt if the covered person fails to comply with an order of a Federal court compelling disclosure of protected information.

(c) To Provide for Timely Determination- With regard to any determination to be made by a Federal court under this Act, that Federal court, to the extent practicable, shall make that determination not later than 30 days after the date of receiving a motion requesting the court make that determination.

(d) Expedited Appeal Process-

(1) IN GENERAL- The courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction--

(A) of appeals by a Federal entity or covered person of an interlocutory order of a Federal court under this Act; and

(B) in an appeal of a final decision of a Federal court by a Federal entity or covered person, to review any determination of a Federal court under this Act.

(2) EXPEDITION OF APPEALS- It shall be the duty of a Federal court to which an appeal is made under this subsection to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of that appeal.

SEC. 9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to--

(1) preempt any law or claim relating to defamation, slander, or libel;

(2) modify the requirements of section 552a of title 5, United States Code, or Federal laws or rules relating to grand jury secrecy (except that this Act shall apply in any proceeding and in connection with any issue arising under that section or the Federal laws or rules relating to grand jury secrecy);

(3) create new obligations, or affect or modify the authorities or obligations of a Federal entity with respect to the acquisition or dissemination of information pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); or

(4) preclude voluntary disclosure of information to a Federal entity in a situation that is not governed by this Act.

SEC. 10. AUDIT.

(a) In General- The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall perform a comprehensive audit of the use of this Act during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2016. The audit shall include an examination of each instance in which a court failed to compel the disclosure of protected information under this Act, and whether this Act has created any procedural impediments that have had a detrimental operational impact on the activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(b) Report- Not later than June 30, 2017, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report containing the results of the audit conducted under subsection (a).

(c) Review- Not later than 30 days before the submission of the report under subsection (b), the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall provide the report to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. The Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may provide such comments to be included in the report submitted under subsection (b) as the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may consider necessary.

(d) Form- The report submitted under subsection (b) and any comments included under subsection (c) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER- The term ‘communications service provider’--

(A) means any person that transmits information of the customer’s choosing by electronic means; and

(B) includes a telecommunications carrier, an information service provider, an interactive computer service provider, and an information content provider (as such terms are defined in section 3 or 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153 and 230)).

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term ‘covered person’--

(A) means a person who--

(i) with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest, regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes on such matters by--

(I) conducting interviews;

(II) making direct observation of events; or

(III) collecting, reviewing, or analyzing original writings, statements, communications, reports, memoranda, records, transcripts, documents, photographs, recordings, tapes, materials, data, or other information whether in paper, electronic, or other form;

(ii) has such intent at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought; and

(iii) obtains the news or information sought in order to disseminate the news or information by means of print (including newspapers, books, wire services, news agencies, or magazines), broadcasting (including dissemination through networks, cable, satellite carriers, broadcast stations, or a channel or programming service for any such media), mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means;

(B) includes a supervisor, employer, parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of a person described in subparagraph (A); and

(C) does not include any person who is or is reasonably likely to be--

(i) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as those terms are defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);

(ii) a member or affiliate of a foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a));

(iii) designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the Department of the Treasury under Executive Order No. 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701);

(iv) a specially designated terrorist, as that term is defined in section 595.311 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto);

(v) a terrorist organization, as that term is defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II));

(vi) committing or attempting to commit the crime of terrorism, as that offense is defined in section 2331(5) or 2332b(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code;

(vii) committing or attempting the crime of providing material support, as that term is defined in section 2339A(b)(1) of title 18, United States Code, to a terrorist organization; or

(viii) aiding, abetting, or conspiring in illegal activity with a person or organization defined in clauses (i) through (vii).

(3) DOCUMENT- The term ‘document’ means writings, recordings, and photographs, as those terms are defined by rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (28 U.S.C. App.).

(4) FEDERAL ENTITY- The term ‘Federal entity’ means an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the Federal Government with the power to issue a subpoena or issue other compulsory process.

(5) PROPERLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term ‘properly classified information’ means information that is classified in accordance with any applicable Executive orders, statutes, or regulations regarding classification of information.

(6) PROTECTED INFORMATION- The term ‘protected information’ means--

(A) information identifying a source who provided information under a promise or agreement of confidentiality made by a covered person as part of engaging in journalism; or

(B) any records, contents of a communication, documents, or information that a covered person obtained or created--

(i) as part of engaging in journalism; and

(ii) upon a promise or agreement that such records, contents of a communication, documents, or information would be confidential.

////

This is Washington-Speak for "SILENCE PEONS - CHILLING EFFECTS ARE THE NEW FREEDOM". Ughhhh terrible. More to follow.

Massive Minnesota Tar Sands Enbridge Line 67 called out by Rep. Hornstein for invalid Certificate of Need at MN Public Utilities Commission; Utah make total win; Felix & Michigan Cats win vs Enbridge Line 6B today!

Set yr hashtags for #fearlessSummer #summerheat cause it's on! Enbridge is a Canadian corporation trying to nail down a disastrous and indeed genocidal tar sands pipeline from Alberta Canada. This would be bigger than the infamous Keystone XL.

Great starting article based on latest events: Climate activists to fossil fuel industry: ‘If you build it, we will come’ by Camila Ibanez.

On the Minnesota front first: It's a bit of a complicated regulatory story - for a rundown and action items start here: http://tc.indymedia.org/2013/jul/dont-keystone-take-action-stop-enbridge...

Posted just now on OccupyMN.org about this with more detailz, plz check it out - http://www.occupymn.org/as-the-enbridgeresistance-grows-a-minnesota-repr...

See earlier: http://www.ienearth.org/oil-in-your-backyard/ (July 18)

Related lines (but not Line 67) are blockaded outside Leonard MN and the camp is awesome. Follow on fedbook: https://www.facebook.com/EnbridgeBlockade - Background story: http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/red-lake-encampment-battl...

http://www.startribune.com/business/215881221.html

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/content/state-oks-pipeline-change-over-protests

Fortunately just found out today, State Rep. Frank Hornstein has at least gone on record that the Certificate of Need is total BS. He's a pretty good guy.

enbridge-line-67-hornstein.jpg

Here is a backgrounder on the tar sands world market mechanisms from Al Monaco CEO of Enbridge: http://www.northerngateway.ca/news-and-media/northern-gateway-blogs/trad... indicating Hornstein is indeed correct and Enbridge is lying in the MN Certificate of Need.

/////

In related developments in Utah: Efforts to scatter investors from the potential first US tar sands mine have gotten tons of traction and lots of nifty direct action! http://canyoncountryactioncamp.org/ and on twitter @Peace_Up_ and https://twitter.com/CCRisingTide also https://twitter.com/tarsandsRESIST . Here is the full reportback from @uneditedcamera http://uneditedmedia.com/utah-canyon-country-action-camp/ - please read it!

Just a fantastic video from our dear colleagues! Please pass it on, best direct action in Utah video evar?!

Lol direct action zaps already almost worthless 'penny stock' - take that Capitalist herd navigating betwixt fears & greeds! http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/tar-sands-stock-tanks-after-direct-action-in-utah/ .

TICKER: http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=USO.V and great headline: http://www.kcsg.com/view/full_story/23284210/article-US-Oil-Sands-stock-drops-13--day-nonviolent-direct-action-shuts-down-mine?instance=eeo_report1 "US Oil Sands stock drops 13% day nonviolent direct action shuts down mine".

/////

In Michigan today something's been going on all day with Michigan Cats! These Lolcats just got the goods with Non Violent Direct Action! On FedBook: https://www.facebook.com/michigancats

main post / live blog: http://www.michigancats.org/daring-aerial-blockade/. on tweeter: https://twitter.com/MichiganCat

This morning, MICATS is taking direct action in the Crane Pond State Game Area to halt expansion of Canadian corporation Enbridge Energy’s tar sands pipeline 6B with an aerial blockade.

LIKE and SHARE if you stand in solidarity with impacted communities, ‪#‎MICATS‬, and all those resisting tar sands infrastructure.

Check out our LIVE updates on our blog! http://www.michigancats.org/

michigancats2.jpg michigancats1.jpg

//////

California Wut? Also via @revfredsmall "Fantastic 7-min interview w/ my 90yr-old mom arrested at #SummerHeat Richmond Chevron @KALW #CrossCurrents (:59-8:00) http://bit.ly/174YUo9 " - San Fran Chronicle Ecuador communities speak out : http://t.co/99cyAfqdPS . via @carriem213: sit in to get arrested vs fossil fuels . DNow snippet about 200 arrested: http://m.democracynow.org/headlines/2013/8/5/35340

Well it is just great to see things firing on so many cylinders on this issue. Good luck everyone!!!

UPDATE: left out a few things. Oglala Lakota president Brewer arrested in human blockade at White Clay Nebraska - http://youtu.be/08qOoZNohSw .

IDAHO: About 100 in Nez Perce Tribe maintain 2.5 hour rolling roadblock despite 40-50 police officers. Moar here: http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2013/08/photos-nez-perce-rolling-roadblock... . some more updates here: https://www.facebook.com/bigcountrynewsconnection?hc_location=stream

MK Occupy Minnesota: The Drug Recognition Evaluator BCA Investigation files

By Dan Feidt -- hongpong.com -- MINNEAPOLIS -- NOV 12 2012 -- Law enforcement officers under a state training program called Drug Recognition Evaluators encouraged people in downtown Minneapolis, including Occupy Minnesota protesters at Peavey Plaza and other vulnerable and houseless people to participate in alcohol and drug intoxication evaluations. After a 35-minute video "MK Occupy Minnesota" [produced by Occupy Minneapolis, Communities United Against Police Brutality, Rogue Media & Twin Cities Indymedia] was released documenting claims of several DRE participants they'd been given drugs and encouraged to take drugs, an officer from Hutchinson, MN, stepped forward to corroborate part of that story.

UPDATE Nov 28: For a DRE training manual & a few other docs see the update. Thanks to CityPages for doing a whole series of posts including an interview.

Mn Bureau of Criminal Apprehension under the Department of Public Safety, generated a 513-page investigative report described in Minnesota Public Radio & Star Tribune stories, but not available publicly in full until now, adding another chunk to this incomplete story from one of the many gray areas in the war on drugs & the suppression of Occupy protesters.

New BCA Report URL: http://hongpong.com/files/dre/DRE-investigation-BCA.pdf (78MB)

May 3: http://www.hongpong.com/archives/2012/05/03/mk-occupy-minnesota-drugs-dre-program-peavey-plaza


Original video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTgN17FZGKE MK Occupy Minnesota: Drugs & the DRE Program at Peavey Plaza - May 2 2012 - 155,777 views @ Nov 12 2012

SCRIBD URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112922193/DRE-Investigation-BCA

DRE Investigation BCA

This BCA report, a compilation of interviews, correspondence & law enforcement & their lawyers refusing to answer the BCA's questions about DRE, raises many questions. Besides the claims of the Occupy protesters, many unethical practices including cash for participation, discussing gaining "leverage" over "volunteers" by threatening to arrest them (pg 76), not having an ambulance near where people were encouraged to take drugs at the gravel pit in Richfield near the MnDOT garage, no waivers, the explicit suspending of state drug laws for a privately organized certification program (pg 91, 99), etc.

Many of the officers discuss a general sense of unease across their entire class, of trespassing certain obvious moral or ethical boundaries ('your morals are gone', pg 428). As Minneapolis considers dissolving the Civilian Review Authority oversight board, many connections to the Minneapolis Police Department including the 5th Precinct have not been reviewed.

Other items include: a BCA AT&T phone subpoena to trace phone/SMS activity by one of the officers involved, and more on the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) role in the program (pg 223, 231) -- as an officer discusses, they're called "evaluators" rather than "experts" because the courts don't really recognize it (pg 202). IACP receives large donations from major defense contractors to promote local police policies expanding biometrics & surveillance, war-on-terror tech deployed at home, mass incarceration and intensifying the war on drugs. The IACP has managed to impose this pseudo-legal yet scientifically unproven framework, the DRE, with its morally abhorrent training program, on many states besides Minnesota.

In the end of this phase, the Hennepin County Attorney's office ruled out filing charges after so many officers stonewalled (pg 54-57) [as the Strib noted, some of the same same legal operations used by the disgraced Metro Gang Strike Force officers]. Pages significant to documenting the way illegal government operations in Minnesota get papered over, the 'coverup machine' network of lawyered up law enforcement, listed below ('get everyone quiet', pg 367)-- and really, Hennepin concluded, unless an officer handed out a generous 42 grams in one sitting, it wouldn't be a felony crime.

While everything in this strange report should be taken critically, disturbing themes of emerge of relatively young rural police officers being sent around Minneapolis to find the chemically dependent & mentally ill, turn them loose again after they're intoxicated, without any help like medical or social support, and connections to further gray areas like developing informants in the drug world(pg 381), and a methamphetamine-addicted informant handled into performing an evaluation by a Ramsey County deputy.

Another key subject is the Donald Steven Turner interview (pg 485-492) wherein he describes not only his certainty that Occupiers were lying, he seemingly brags about giving a Minneapolis police officer he knows one person's name and then scaring them into jumping a train out of town, talking up his ability to develop 'profiles' on OccupyMN members, etc. While the authorities describe Turner as a credible OccupyMN member, he had a reputation for scuffling with people and being tossed from Occupy meetings, taking at least one bike, and other serious issues stretching back long before Occupy started in New York. This are some of the most jaded & disturbing statements I've ever seen documented, seemingly bragging about informing to spread fear. More interviews with others he affected are really needed to tell this particular story. Whether or not his statements have any validity, the damage to privacy of third parties he named has already been done in his statement to law enforcement -- unfortunately, redacting the first names Don put out there would do no good.

Voters showed last week they're becoming increasingly weary of the war on drugs, which has generated huge profits for lawyers, corporations, banks and Wall Street through laundered money. All this shadiness isn't a bug, it's a feature. Will Minnesota recognize the failure of the war on drugs and cancel abusive, unscientific programs like the DRE? Can Minnesota shift from punishment, coercion & incarceration to harm-reduction chemical dependency policies that treat everyone humanely?

[birthday/phone/contact info of people targeted by DRE was removed with black rectangles. This document did not arrive via government/data practices channels, and some other details, likely police personal details like cell phone & home addresses were apparently removed with marker probably by the BCA.]

For more information & work on similar issues please see the websites of groups involved in producing the initial MK Occupy Minnesota video:

Communities United Against Police Brutality - CUAPB.org - @CUAPB

roguemedia.org @roguemedia_org

OccupyMinneapolis.mn - @occupyMN

tc.indymedia.org @TCIMC

hongpong.com @hongpong

globalrevolution.tv @globalrevlive

---- This story and the original video MK Occupy Minnesota are licensed Creative Commons with Attribution --

--------

Here is shorthand for some interesting pages to check out further. Particular interesting pages marked with asterisks:

22 coverup

36 Hutchinson drug kit?

90 Munoz

42 coverup

49 Holiday parking lot lol

54-57 coverup

66 LDF coverup

76 using statutes for leverage to gain 'volunteers'

79 coverup

83 * "I just gave them marijuana it's not like I hurt anybody"

91 WTF instruction on illegal drugs?

99 WTF little to no instruction on street subjects

102 incentives "could offer them money"

105 "wink wink nod nod"

106 - why blank?

109 "I just gave them marijuana"

112 warnings about occupy minnesota / Munoz instruction after video

116 WTF

125 Telephone subpoena

129 Don Turner says occupiers lied about DRE

136 possible missing marijuana from Nobles Co evidence room?

140 Hennepin County Attorney CASE CLOSED summary

141 Hutchinson starts inquiry

142 Roster of police participants

148 players in International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

152-153 *** the case - interview

154 **** disposing of the case

157 no independent medical personnel or ambulance nearby (even though drugs are being taken in area)

162 phone subpoena

163 drugs with volunteers

190-191 coverup

198 getting leverage on volunteers- threaten to arrest

202 definitions of 'expert' vs 'evaluator' - they aren't real 'experts' but IACP labels it

206 Munoz instructs not to hand out drugs after video is posted

208 Michelle Ness: "we kinda looked over to Peavey and we're like whoa concentration of potential clients"

217 Hutchinson PD evidence sheet

223-224 IACP control log & material

226 instructors watch all evaluations?

227-228 training schedule

231 IACP

232 "kidnapping" & volunteers

233 probation & volunteers, illegal/warrant issues

235 sketchiness 'it was odd'

239 offering cheeseburgers

241 occupy & video questions

244 national players in IACP / DRE

245 coverup lawyer

249 5th Precinct MPD connection

259 seizure

261 MPD 5th Pct

268 MPD 5th Pct

273 MPD & incentives advice

275 coverup lawyer

278 * Certificates & IACP

279 uneasy feeling for all students

286 Otterson - no instruction

287 "shitty areas"

288 occupy video day we took final exam / weed

289 call to MPD about beat-up guy

291 * direct supervisor for years

295 no independent medical presence or ambulance at MnDOT

297 IACP

305 specs for program change from 12 to 15 evals

309 MPD 5th Pct

310 No waivers for drug participants

311 Munoz says don't provide drugs after occupy video

315 "target area"

323 story about prostitute

325 MPD

335 blackmail "volunteers" via Minneapolis statutes: " get us copies of Minneapolis codes, um in case we saw people you know breaking any city ordinances and kinda use that as a way to get them to see that, you know you can come with us or you know Minneapolis"

340 certification goes via the IACP DRE national website (NOT 'real' state authority)

343 coverup

347 *** Willers narrative - confusion over brothers

348 MPD

354 MPD

357 fear of being recorded at Peavey Plaza

360 ok to buy cigarettes, cash, overlook state drug law etc

361 giving $$$

367-8 *** coverup Legal Defense Fund "get everyone quiet"

381 developing informants "a lot of times we never charged 'em. We said you know give us some info on who your source is"

385-386 Pete's box getting low

387-88 ** informants high on meth

389 smoking in the gravel pit

390 letting off warrant suspect, more suspension of law

391 officer had weed "a bag the officer had the marijuana in" ??

402 incentives

405 MPD

406 coercion of "volunteers"

412-413 woman who was "nuts" = no mental health support

414 using traffic stops & $ for "volunteers"

415 giving out beer

421 snitching: "We did a UA and ah they actually um they apparently he was gonna snitch out some people for drugs and guns"

426 getting desperate, offering a buffet

427 threat of jail

428 ** "your morals are gone"

429 "you can either go to jail for possession of the drugs or if you want to cooperate with us we'll give you a pass."

434 morals/instruction

439 giving out shooter glasses

443-445 getting high

447 odd redaction may be house address?

460 crimes at discretion

468-469 crack, pimp, Popeye's

470 a pimp / the jacket incident

471"it is weird. It is a weird class to go out and try to find someone high"

479 AT&T cell phone subpoena

485-492 *** Don Steven Turner interview

487-492 *** Don talks to MPD Mercil (Sp?) a lot

495 it's like a joint task force re expanded geographic arrest powers

496-497 smoking in Richfield

499 goodie bag MJ

501-513 final Hennepin County report

--
To reach the publisher of this file contact Dan Feidt at hongpong@hongpong.com or at twitter.com/hongpong.

The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies - for decoding astroturfing & malicious forum & Internet operations, trolls, sockpuppets, crapflooding & disinfo specialists

Reposting this as it's a much more handy summary than I could give. Neato! I think we're seeing this get more and more privatized as well -- I have a couple flagrant sockpuppets I know and love, they are like a handy little COINTELPRO weathervane. When talking Information Operations (not to mention spinstorms) this is stuff that should be right on hand.

******

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies - Via Cryptome.org - read cryptome every day if you're not already :)

****

A sends:

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________

COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

______________________________________________________________________________________

How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

"You're dividing the movement."

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

Wins in Minneapolis & Choppy seas indeed: Glowing Monsanto corn, Fukushima quake would make total Cesium northern hemisphere doom

EU bankfail as everyone relishes Spain's 'successful auction' - American bankfail continues as homeless spirals, inflation & money velocity drift

On the MN front, well the Occupy movement in Minneapolis really flushed out a lot of authoritarian over-reactions in the last couple weeks, starting with a haphazard police action slapping a KSTP photographer, arresting a dozen occupiers including an indy videographer (which the tut tutters ignore, etc). A meeting with the mayor and police chief was achieved. Videos & stills from the street incident by various folks including myself and roguemedia.org at youtube.com/hongpong & quickly circulated as far as Iran's state news service PressTV lol.

A few days later, Minneapolis City Council President Barb Johnson tried to sneak an unlawful resolution without any public notice, which would have instantiated shutting down many inalienable rights between midnight and 6 AM on Nicollet Mall and Peavey/Greenway/Riverside plazas etc., including my right to collect stories and media as a journalist, a proselytizer's right to preach the Gospel, a protesters right to protest, a homeless person's right to exist, etc., in the name of the hellish blandness demanded by corporate psychopaths who want peace & quiet and these damn kids off their publicly owned lawns. The Council kicked it to committee 9-4 after the mayor lobbied for the corrupt resolution.

For the moment, anyhow, this pushed Johnson from the perceived 'center' to the 'right' of the DFL-dominated city political continuum. With an embarrassing defeat for the mayor, with the high stakes Vikings Stadium deal to rail thru without a vote in Minneapolis on the rocks at the Capitol, and Barb's greasy Peavey Plaza plan whacked in at least one committee, it seems the wheels of shadiness have trouble turning when a little sand gets in the gears. (the next hearing is May 2nd or 3rd, this would be a public hearing for the public safety committee vote, don't have info on hand. see facebook.com/occupymn or occupyminneapolis.mn )

According to one source, Mayor Rybak & Johnson's defeat last Friday was enough to spur one pol to discuss finally taking on the city machine -- the notion is that this new shakeup could finally crack open some political space in Minneapolis for an alternative after years upon years of stasis and acquiescence to top-down control (on behalf of the big banks and police union types in particular).

If nothing else then, it shows that the Founding Feathers insisted upon enough cracks in the machine to get the sand into. They never really could guarantee that the machine would work, but it seems like the saving grace for the last week was basically our dwindling freedom to throw sand in the machine. Good times. Even in Big Stone County people are standing up against massive mining projects.

Kind of a linkdump to throw here. Let's roll...

Keiser Report: Vicious Circle of Bankster Huddles (E277) - RT video 25mins with Matt Taibbi, covers the glorious Warren Buffett's Wells Fargo ownership link re drug money laundering with Wachovia & 22 tons in cocaine at about 20 minutes.

I missed this article rounding out the Bank of America situation: Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail. Taibbi addresses in the RT segment how to deal with breaking down complex financial crimes to a mass audience, and sycophant trends in the journalism industry... tough stuff especially when the blasé corruption of a whole generation creates a nice thick layer of cynicism which has to be pierced and/or eroded before a damn thing changes. My favorite angle is Bank of America manipulating London's LIBOR inter-bank interest rate to alter the $350,000,000,000,000 - yes $350 trillion worth of securities. [Everything is priced linked to LIBOR as a general index] More corruption: Yet Another Obama Big Lie: Mortgage Fraud Investigation Not Even Staffed « naked capitalism

Wanted Pakistani man surfaces in video - Asia - Al Jazeera English. Adnan Rashid another operative out and about to tangle with that Pakistani government the interventionists enjoy ragging on. Oh yeah... Iran war. No time for that, but the whole middle east geopolitical equation with Iran/Syria is like some damn junior-year daydream scenario of mine. It's just weird. (see one of my favorite pieces from the Mac Weekly 2004: Lunch Beyond Good and Evil: Around a Table with Michael Ledeen)

NATO Summit 2012 - Police State Chicago - YouTube - lol get ready, this is Lower Wacker Drive hehe...

dead honeybees in colony collapse studyMonsanto glowing corn; Honey has a sad. Monsanto got control of a bee research place to inject more disinfo in the discourse about that other colossal eco-collapse, I'm sure. Someone told me a good one about the time Monsanto tried to make a new variety of corn and it glowed. It was a huge failure and they went to some lengths to cover it up. I wonder what other freakish creations they've made?

Here is a nice study by two beekeepers and a Harvard man. www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Lu-final-proof1.pdf

Colony Collapse Disorder in bees triggered not just by pesticides, but also by GMO high-fructose corn syrup. NaturalNews can be a bit hippyish but overall its not a bad place to start & they catch decent stories as well as in-depth on the federal food & drug fascist network operations going on at the behest of the Big Ag cartel, the Chicago-based milk price fixing racket etc. "Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in HFCS causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing," wrote the authors. "15 or 16 imidacloprid-treated hives (94%) were dead across four apiaries 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing."

So the pesticides left over in the corn syrup wastes the bees pretty easily. Makes sense, but it sucks they are feeding bees pesticide-laden corn syrup to make cheap honey eh?

Fukushima kabewm: Massive industrial strength coverup. One good place to start: OpEdNews - Article: Is Fukushima's Doomsday Machine About to Blow? Look up Arnie Gundersen's videos, etc. Where are the EPA readings? Videos of people with 3x hazmat-triggering radiation levels in Los Angeles air filters. Vancouver etc., it's all hot now. Almost as horrible as the disfigured seafood coming out of the Gulf in droves nowadays.

Cancer studies gigafail as medical journals verified as mostly spam-laundering for spoofing FDA processes with new "intellectual property": Also, perhaps a bit dramatic but 88% failure rate is not acceptable, you chumps: Cancer industry total fraud exposed: Nearly all 'scientific' studies fail to be replicated. Roundup: Cell phone radiation and cancer: Just how much more proof do you need?

President of Iceland explains how to tell banks to go screw themselves and win yr country back! Proof positive we can defeat the bankster police state slavery policy through resistance and courage! Iceland's President Explains Why The World Needs To Rethink Its Addiction To Finance - Business Insider. "Recovering faster and more effectively" than any other economy -- by dumping bad debt, not backing up zombie banks! If you read one interview, it should be this one :) He even points out that BankBloat absorbs more useful tech people, IT, engineers etc., and when the banks collapsed, those people got productive jobs in the primary (or "real") economy, which picked up even more.

Funniest damn thing: this video I didn't bother to watch but the idea of ancient nephilim giants coming to eat frozen corpses in FEMA coffins is like some kind of prize achievement in conspiracy thinking. Madame Blavatsky would be proud of the mythological cuisinart going on here, and the tags are great too: FEMA CAMPS - People frozen and eaten? - YouTube. Why not?

ZBV Backscatter van coming to protests and Super Bowls near you: This has been out for a bit but not too high profile. Around the time of big Capitol protests in March 2011 I saw a weird tall van in Madison WI with California plates, parked among the state patrol & ranger types. It was not as wide as this van, but it sat lurking all night with some dude doing stuff, and the engine running... Something like an unmarked mobile command center or etc. Anyway: "ZBV" - Z Backscatter Van - YouTube

Islamic universalism, colonial divide & rule lecture: Hour+ video just posted with Dr Fouzi Slisli Islamic Universalism and Colonial Divide and Rule Policies.

College courses for slum dwellin IT guys: a cynical take but let's see: Top U.S. Colleges to Offer Free Classes Online

Assange, RT and a Hezbollah interview? There's a word for this: trolling. Here come the haters! Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics - Salon.com. Another review by Kevin Gosztola: About Julian Assange’s New Revolutionary Television Show | The Dissenter

Keep it classy, down with paganism! Rep. Mary Franson infuriated by Earth Day, calls it "Pagan holiday" [UPDATE] - The Blotter

FBI grabs Riseup server: Consequences spill over harming many legit organizations. FBI Seizes a Server Used by CLG's Webhoster in Bomb Threat Investigation | Citizens for Legitimate Government. Notably the FBI doesn't grab Google's servers physically - it's proof that the unbelievably reliable Riseup.net isn't playing the same game as the other guys. Official note: Server Seizure, April 2012 - help.riseup.net

Foreclosure mill: Moar fake vice presidents. Economy Watch - Inside the foreclosure factory, they're working overtime

Colombia Secret Service fail: reeks of covert ops. Didn't I post just before this happened that merging Homeland Security and the Secret Service was bad news?! Can this please somehow lead to the end of the war on drugs AND the end of the war on sex workers? CBS: At Least 20 Women Involved In Secret Service Prostitution Scandal - YouTube

Older stuff; TSA VIPR nightmare: The TSA's mission creep is making the US a police state -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net // "Dominate. Intimidate. Control." - Reason. (James Bovard is a damn good libertarian writer, details without the usual fluff)

Meet the new DNA? Scientists create DNA alternative | The Raw Story. Well at least we know XNA will be the operating system of our hellish cyborg overlords. See also: [1204.4116] An existing, ecologically-successful genus of collectively intelligent artificial creatures. First line "People sometimes worry about the singularity" lolll...

Drug war aside, Backstrom as Elvis: Dakota County Attorney and dedicated drug-warrior James Backstrom will actually run away rather than answer questions about whether or not cannabis has been used as medicine for centuries. Try it, it's fun! Thus, playing a man felled by Big Pharma like Elvis makes sense. Well hat tip to Backstrom here: Dakota County Attorney By Day, Elvis By Night? « CBS. // The next sham in Minnesota, pretending Schedule I actually means "no medical use" for cannabis: HF2508 Status in House for Legislative Session 87 // A little essay: Let's Be Blunt: It's Time to End the Drug War - Forbes // 1989: Drug-money Launderers Cleaning Up With Cash - Chicago Tribune:

Leigh Ritch, convicted of drug trafficking in 1986, testified at his trial that he regularly moved hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug profits to the Cayman Islands with ease.

Ritch said he stuffed the money into suitcases and took it to the Caymans, where local banks charged a 1 percent fee for ``counting the cash,`` a euphemism for laundering. The banks then shipped the money to the U.S. Federal Reserve system, he said.

As U.S. officials successfully pressured Caribbean nations to curtail such practices, Panama, with a longstanding policy of allowing untaxed, numbered bank accounts and asking few questions, became the banking center of Latin America.

Man, European new world order eugenic bloodline types are the worst! And who worse than those maniacs in the Netherlands!? Queen Beatrix’s Brother-In-Law Calls For Mandatory Birth Control For The “Unfit” - Alex Jones. Classic 1984 clip of Prince Philip talking about humanity in "plague proportions." Damn reptilians! Why can't they just hang out in old castles and dine on human flesh like their forefathers? (yes really)

Propellerheads unite: The Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver is now a real thing of sorts (io9)

Rise of the drones: coming for a county cattle rustler near you! The Rise of the Killer Drones: How America Goes to War in Secret | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Romney's Mormon mafia on the rise? Courthouse News Service - Bain Capital management slaves say they were fired because they weren't Mormon. Ugh. Mitt Romney, American Parasite - villagevoice.

The Nation and its OWS VISA offer: Gawd what an eye roller. Don't these people understand VISA and compound interest are right at the core of the problem!? Lol at Adbusters. The Pitch: Move Your Money Relay | The Nation...

Show your support today for OWS's Move Your Money Relay by applying for The Nation Magazine Platinum Visa® Rewards Card from UMB Bank of Kansas City.

UMB is a small, regional bank recommended by the Move Your Money project, a project we support. When you apply for and use the Nation Magazine Platinum Visa® Rewards Card, the bank will donate $50 and a percentage of all your future purchases on the card to The Nation! .... The more of us who participate, the bigger the impact. Show your support today for Occupy Wall Street and The Nation magazine and Move Your Money!

This is worth its own post but.... yeah. Wow. Re: Battle for the Soul of Occupy | Adbusters.

More econ items: Chris Martenson: "The Trouble With Money" | ZeroHedge // Forget '5 Minutes To Midnight', We Are 'An Inch From War' | ZeroHedge // Guest Post: Floating Exchange Rates - Unworkable And Dishonest | ZeroHedge // The Risk Of 'Hot' Inflation | ZeroHedge

WOW:
2-Housing-Busts-President-Report-Real-Terms-2012.jpeg

Europe Drops Dismally Amid Deja Vu | ZeroHedge // Guest Post: Wages And Consumption Are Both In Long-Term Downtrends | ZeroHedge // Is The Real Indicator Of The Global Economy In Africa? | ZeroHedge // The Check Is In The Mail And Other Lies | ZeroHedge

Cool fallback plan bro: Guest Post: How States Can Protect Themselves From Financial Collapse | ZeroHedge: "States with heavy resources will be in a perfect position to decouple from the failing establishment and build their own systems (which is probably a main motivation behind Obama’s latest “National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order…). Step 5: Adopt Alternative Currencies... Provide for yourself and others what the mainstream system will not, and eventually, they will either have to conform to your logic, because it works, or, they will have to try and stop you with violence and expose their inherent tyranny, building greater resistance. In either case, you win." etc. neat!

Montana GOP gets the Iran Contra Psyop Treatment!: Bob Janjuah Dismisses Central Bank Independence Amid Monetary Anarchy // Guest Post: Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama | ZeroHedge -- an exciting account of shady lunatic operative Neil Livingstone and his Psyops guru buddy Paul Vallely electioneering around; Vallely's a co-writer of the infamous Michael Aquino tract "From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory".

Vallely has been posing locally and nationally as a Liberty Movement proponent with his organization “Stand Up America”, just as Livingstone and Zinke have been posing as Constitutional freedom loving traditional conservatives. Anyone who has studied the Cointelpro operations of the 1960’s and 1970’s would probably see a familiar pattern in all of this, but many Montanans I fear may not be quite so aware.

So Montana is in a pretty hard core situation with a ring of Ollie North types cutting a major move. Where else can we spot the template?

The Mother Of All Infographics: Visualizing America's Derivatives Universe | ZeroHedge // Fasten Your Seatbelts: High Frequency Trading Is Coming To The Treasury Market | ZeroHedge // Gravitation Returns As Apple Falls, Drags Everything With It | ZeroHedge // Italy Jumps On Nationalization Bandwagon: Tax Police "Seizes" 20% Of Second Largest Domestic Insurer | ZeroHedge // Viva Central Planning | ZeroHedge // electricity is deteriorating but it's worse for brokerages than anyone else?! All that wasted electricity - not to mention the talent as Iceland's five-term president described above. Yet Another Exponential Chart... And A Different Spin On "Keynesianism" | ZeroHedge. woww...

A little more grab bag action: Prison Planet.com » Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes - a good example of PrisonPlanet going slightly off kilter with their headline -- the decidedly reactionary writer Steve Swick says "let's let their houses burn" which is a really off-putting kind of statement, but it's not the same as 'burning down'. Let's lock PrisonPlanet's Watson and Zwick in a room for a while...

Bill Gates comic book: this guy... wow man, the Gates Foundation and the whole bit. Arggg.. This site is a little odd but they are having some fun with a new approach: The Daily Bell - Is the Vaccine Industry Beginning to Fail?

HOMELESS VETERANS: I just heard more info on this - BIG pdf report on CHALENG, a homeless coordination services project. More info: Project CHALENG - Homeless Veterans // www.va.gov/HOMELESS/docs/chaleng/CHALENG_Report_Seventeenth_Annual.pdf . United States Interagency Council on Homelessness | People's Advocacy Council // Opening Doors Across America | Take Action | United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). For every fraudulently conveyed mortgage and robosigned fake document, every eviction and foreclosure you get more homeless and an empty house (and a further depressed housing market).

THis is nuts: F-35 fighter jet's escalating costs are on Washington's radar - latimes.com

Looks cool - notes in MN: Global Robotics Innovation Park // Wedge Co-op warehouse employees unionize //

Homeland security story propagates: interestingly, a lot of people across the political spectrum picked up the post about Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and their monstrous trucks. » Homeland Security Unveils Monstrous SWAT Trucks Alex Jones // SHTF411.com • SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM RIDES..... // Full-Spectrum-Dominance.com | FSD.net // ConspiracyCulture.com // Resistor in the Rockies: Meet the new Boss in Town: ICE spawns - HSI Homeland Security Investigations // Special Response Team: Coming To A Neighborhood Near you, by Homeland Security | Decrypted Matrix // seeing is believing ....sit down - Back Country Rebels - Forums // Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters // The republican Mother: This is how the government preps, you amateurs! etc. People seem instantly infuriated by the sight of those damn trucks!

Anyway that is it for now. Hope you enjoy zee ol linkdump!

Federal Register Declarez Theyz Can Administrative Detention ur organic foodz for no reason

The Raw Foods Counterterrorism style campaign is amping up in full swing. Farmers are becoming Hunted Men. Their assets now subject to destruction - Official Notice Below thank you verrry much.

The stasi element always is implemented by the powers of Glorious Federal Administrative Rulemaking. Government attorneys - they write this stuff like poems when off smoking crack with lobbyists in Foggy Bottom's most notorious opium dens.

Like I posted earlier, the Federal Register sez: You Wuz Warned, America!

I disagree with the headline because the food does not actually have to be unsafe. Unsafe is a shady word. Like the Food Prosecutors they are, they sort of draw the inference of evilness without proof of danger. Similar insanity is going on with the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy right now.

In the time of collapse do you want to trust the arbitrary mass targeted food snatching of a federal agency - an agency which makes no provision below for returning food when it is not even contaminated?! They have a whole section rationalizing the expense of how much food they think will not actually be dangerous, yet seized anyway.

Why should FDA "acting administrators" be the chieftains heralding these big policy shifts? That's another sketchy thing leading to horrible plans like this. The GOP conspired to block hundreds of various top executive agency appointments - so the agencies kind of drift along creating even more irrational forms of bureaucratization than normal. Temporary leadership is just wrong - how can those temping officials have any leverage to properly deal with their affairs?

Also WHUT UP to CIDRAP a unit of the University of Minnesota dedicated to dealing with pandemics & emergency measures - interesting things like how to avoid total supplychain collapse in event of pandemic embargoes.

CIDRAP >> New rules give FDA more power to block unsafe food

Robert Roos News Editor May 5, 2011 (CIDRAP News) – The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says two new regulations to take effect in July will give the agency more power to detain unsafe food and identify potentially hazardous imported foods.

The regulations are the first to be issued by the FDA under new authorities it gained with passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act in January, the agency said in an announcement yesterday.

The first rule will allow the FDA to "administratively detain food the agency believes has been produced under insanitary or unsafe conditions," the statement said. Previously the FDA could detain food only when it "had credible evidence that a food product presented was contaminated or mislabeled in a way that presented a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals."

The new rule empowers the FDA to hold food products for up to 30 days, giving time to determine if it should seize the products or seek a court order blocking their distribution.

Under the old rules the FDA has often worked with states to detain food products under state authority until federal enforcement action could be launched in a federal court, the agency said.

"This authority strengthens significantly the FDA's ability to keep potentially harmful food from reaching U.S. consumers," FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Mike Taylor said in the news release. "It is a prime example of how the new food safety law allows FDA to build prevention into our food safety system."

The second rule requires anyone importing food or animal feed into the United States to tell the FDA if any country has blocked importation of the same product. This requirement will give the agency more information about imported foods, improving its ability to target foods that may be hazardous, officials said.

The new reporting requirement will be administered through the FDA's existing system requiring prior notice of incoming shipments of imported food, established under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.

"The new information on imports can help the FDA make better-informed decisions in managing the potential risks of imported food entering the United States," Taylor said. He added that the FDA will add a series of further new rules for both domestic and imported foods later this year and next year.

Both new regulations are scheduled to take effect Jul 3, but the FDA will accept comments on them until Aug 3, according to notices published today in the Federal Register.

Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25538-25542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10953]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1

RIN 0910-AG67
[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0197]

Criteria Used To Order Administrative Detention of Food for Human
or Animal Consumption

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its
regulations on administrative detention of food for human or animal
consumption. As required by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
(FSMA), FDA is issuing this interim final rule to change the criteria
for ordering administrative detention of human or animal food. Under
the new criteria, FDA can order administrative detention if there is
reason to believe that an article of food is adulterated or misbranded.
This will further help FDA prevent potentially harmful food from
reaching U.S. consumers and thereby improve the safety of the U.S. food
supply.

DATES: Effective date: This interim final rule is effective July 3,
2011.
Comment date: Interested persons may submit either electronic or
written comments on this interim final rule by August 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William A. Correll, Jr., Office of
Compliance, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-
436-1611.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2011-
N-0197 and/or RIN number 0910-AG67, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

Submit written submissions in the following ways:
FAX: 301-827-6870.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and docket number and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the
``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Legal Background

Each year about 48 million people (1 in 6 Americans) are sickened,
128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from food borne diseases,
according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. This is a significant public health burden that is largely
preventable.
FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353), signed into law by President Obama on
January 4, 2011, enables FDA to better protect public health by helping
to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. It enables FDA to
focus more on preventing food safety problems rather than relying
primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. The law also
provides FDA with new enforcement authorities to help it achieve higher
rates of compliance with prevention- and risk-based food safety
standards and to better respond to and contain problems when they do
occur. The law also gives FDA important new tools to better ensure the
safety of imported foods and directs FDA to build an integrated
national food safety system in partnership with State and local
authorities.
Section 207 of FSMA amends the criteria for ordering administrative
detention of human or animal food in section 304(h)(1)(A) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.
334(h)(1)(A)). Under the new criteria, FDA can order administrative
detention if there is reason to believe that an article of food is
adulterated or misbranded. Decisions regarding

[[Page 25539]]

whether FDA has a ``reason to believe'' a food is adulterated or
misbranded would be made on a case by case basis because such decisions
are fact specific. Section 207 also requires the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to issue an interim final rule implementing this
statutory change no later than 120 days following the date of enactment
of FSMA and provides that the amendment made by section 207 takes
effect 180 days after the date of enactment, which is July 3, 2011.

B. Brief History of Administrative Detention

The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) (Pub. L. 107-188), was
signed into law on June 12, 2002. Among other things, the Bioterrorism
Act amended the FD&C Act by adding subsection (h) to section 304. This
provision provided FDA the authority to order the detention of any
article of food if during an inspection, examination, or investigation
an FDA officer or qualified employee finds there is credible evidence
or information indicating that the article of food presents a threat of
serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. The
Bioterrorism Act also amended the FD&C Act by adding subsection (bb) to
section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331), making it a prohibited act to move an
article of food in violation of a detention order or to remove or alter
any mark or label required by a detention order that identifies an
article of food as detained.
In accordance with the Bioterrorism Act, FDA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (proposed rule) in the Federal Register of May 9,
2003 (68 FR 25242), proposing procedures for the administrative
detention of an article of food. In the Federal Register of June 4,
2004 (69 FR 31660), the Agency issued the final rule establishing the
procedures for administrative detention, including among other
provisions the criteria for ordering administrative detention. The
administrative detention regulations have been codified at Title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1, Subpart K (21 CFR part 1,
subpart K). This interim final rule amends those regulations.
Specifically, the interim final rule is amending Sec. Sec. 1.378 and
1.393(a) by replacing the existing criteria used to order
administrative detention with the new criteria required by section 207
of FSMA.

II. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563: Cost Benefit
Analysis

FDA has examined the impacts of this interim final rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct
Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs,
of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. OMB has determined
that this is a significant regulatory action as defined by the
Executive Orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because the additional costs per entity of this rule
are negligible if any, the Agency also concludes that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $135 million, using the most current (2009) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
interim final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet
or exceed this amount.
In the 2003 proposed rule, FDA analyzed the economic impact of the
proposed rule to provide procedures for administrative detention of
food for human or animal consumption under the Bioterrorism Act (68 FR
25242 at 25250). The Economic Impact Analysis of the June 4, 2004,
final rule (69 FR 31660 at 31685) revised the analysis set forth in the
2003 proposed rule. The 2004 analysis explained that any costs and/or
benefits of the rule can be generated only in those circumstances in
which FDA would choose to order administrative detention instead of
using other enforcement tools available to the Agency, such as
requesting voluntary recall, instituting a seizure action, or referring
the matter to State authorities. In the 2004 analysis, FDA noted that
because administrative detention was a new enforcement tool, we were
not able to directly estimate how often it would be used. FDA
indirectly estimated the number of potential events that would trigger
an administrative detention as a subset of other existing enforcement
actions at the time. The analysis assumed that FDA would be likely to
choose administrative detention only if it were the most effective
enforcement tool available in a particular situation.
This Economic Impact Analysis explains and further revises the
analysis set forth in the 2004 final rule by addressing the economic
impact of the new requirement in section 207 of FSMA.

A. Need for Regulation

The need for this interim final rule arises from section 207 of
FSMA which changed the criteria for ordering administrative detention
of human or animal food. The current criteria in section 304(h)(1)(A)
of the FD&C Act provide FDA the authority to order the detention of an
article of food if during an inspection, examination, or investigation,
an FDA officer or qualified employee finds there is credible evidence
or information indicating that the article of food presents a threat of
serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
Section 207 of FSMA changes the criteria to allow the Agency to order
detention if there is reason to believe that an article of food is
adulterated or misbranded. The new criteria provide FDA enhanced
authority to detain articles of food that may be adulterated or
misbranded for 20 calendar days with a possible 10 calendar day
extension if needed to initiate legal action under section 304 or 302
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 332). This authority will further help the
Agency prevent potentially harmful food from reaching U.S. consumers
and thereby improve the safety of the food supply in the United States.
This interim final rule implements section 207 of FSMA by amending 21
CFR part 1, subpart K, which is already in effect.

B. Costs

The economic impact analysis of the 2004 final rule estimated the
costs of taking administrative detention actions relative to the costs
of other

[[Page 25540]]

enforcement tools already available to FDA. Using these existing tools
FDA could do the following: (1) Request a voluntary recall of the
suspected product; (2) move directly to seize the food; or (3) refer
the matter to State authorities. The 2004 analysis explained that the
estimated number of potential events that would trigger an
administrative detention could also trigger the existing enforcement
actions. The number of actions was estimated as a range between 0 and
223 actions per year. The upper bound (223) is the sum of 184 Class I
recalls, 16 direct seizures, and 23 or 10 percent of the referrals to
State authorities in fiscal year 2002. This sum (223 actions)
represents the upper bound number of times FDA anticipated using
administrative detention, and the lower bound of 0 suggests the
possibility that FDA may not order administrative detention at all in a
given year. In the analysis FDA explained that the main costs of
administrative detention are from the potential loss of the value of
products detained that are not in fact adulterated. Although FDA did
not know the fraction of detained food products that would prove not to
be adulterated, FDA used 48 percent as an upper bound. This number
represents the fraction of imported foods that we detain and later
release. The lower bound used was 0 percent because FDA might only
administratively detain adulterated food products. The total annual
costs for the 2004 final rule were estimated to be between $0, if FDA
never orders administrative detention, and $50 million, if FDA orders
administrative detention against food products 48 percent of which are
later determined not to be adulterated.
Since the Agency has had administrative detention authority, we
have never administratively detained an article of food. Under the new
criteria, we believe that we are more likely to use administrative
detention against articles of food in situations which include, among
others, where the use of, or exposure to, a violative product may cause
temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where
the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote. These
situations are analogous to the situations for ordering Class II
recalls. FDA may choose to order administrative detention in a variety
of situations, including Class II situations, therefore FDA has used
the number of Class II recalls to estimate the costs and benefits of
this interim final rule. Chart 1 below shows the number of Class II
food recall actions reported in the last 14 years ranging from 65 to
195 (annual average of 160).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MY11.127

To the extent that the changes made by this interim final rule
provide FDA enhanced enforcement abilities in addition to other
existing enforcement tools, the maximum number of times we can
reasonably expect to order administrative detention in situations
involving an article of food that meets the criteria for Class II
recalls is bounded by the highest known number of times we have ordered
a Class II recall. The highest number of Class II recall events in the
last 14 years was 195 and the lowest number was 65. However, it is
still possible that we may not use administrative detention in the
event of a Class II recall situation. Therefore we estimate that the
number of times we are likely to order administrative detention could
range between 0 and 195 times per year. Although the 2004 cost
estimates were based on the expectation that FDA would use
administrative detention no more than 223 times per year, FDA has not
used administrative detention as an enforcement tool. The upper bound
cost

[[Page 25541]]

in the 2004 analysis was over estimated and given our present
knowledge, we believe it is still likely to be an overestimate. By
changing the criteria under which we can order administrative
detention, we further reason that FDA will be more likely to order
administrative detention a number of times greater than 0 but less than
195 times during any given year. We reason that any new potential costs
attributable to this interim final rule are likely to be somewhat less
than the upper bound costs previously estimated in the 2004 analysis,
which were $50 million.

C. Benefits

The benefits of using administrative detention as a new enforcement
tool were discussed in the Economic Impact Analysis of the 2004 final
rule (68 FR 31660 at 31685) but were not definitively quantified
because it was difficult to directly estimate how often FDA would order
administrative detention of food. The primary benefits of
administrative detention as described in the 2004 analysis are the
value of the illnesses or deaths prevented because the Agency
administratively detained food suspected of being adulterated. These
benefits are generated if the following two conditions hold: (1) The
food is in fact adulterated and (2) administrative detention prevents
more illnesses or deaths than would have been prevented had we relied
on our other enforcement tools. The more often these conditions hold,
and the larger the amount of adulterated food administratively
detained, the larger the estimated benefits of the final rule. The 2004
final rule analysis also discussed that additional benefits may be
achieved in terms of deterrence to the extent that as the number of
ordered administrative detentions increases so does the likelihood that
adulterated products will not be shipped in the future. As described in
the 2004 final rule, the expected benefits from new administrative
detention authority depend upon FDA using administrative detention as
an enforcement tool. Likewise, the expected benefits from this interim
rule also depend on FDA using this authority. As mentioned in the cost
analysis section, under the new criteria, FDA may choose to order
administrative detention in a variety of situations, including Class II
situations. We also reasoned that the expected number of future
administrative detentions could increase as much as the number of Class
II situations per year, which could be as many as 195. Either way, if
FDA orders administrative detention 195 times in one year, the expected
upper bound benefits are likely to be somewhat less than those
described in the 2004 analysis as a result. At the same time, it is
still possible that FDA will not use administrative detention as an
enforcement tool in all of these situations, in which case the benefits
would likely be 0 which is the same lower bound for benefits described
in the 2004 analysis.

III. Small Entity Analysis (or Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)

FDA examined the economic implications of this interim final rule
as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). If a
rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze
regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on
small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires analyzing options for
regulatory relief for small businesses. FDA finds that this interim
final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act this interim final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small businesses.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

FDA concludes that the requirements of this interim final rule are
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because
they do not constitute a ``collection of information'' under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3220).

V. Analysis of Environmental Impact

The Agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that
this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither
an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.

VI. Federalism

FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly, the Agency has concluded
that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism
implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a
federalism summary impact statement is not required.

VII. Comments

The requirements in this interim final rule will be in effect July
3, 2011. FDA invites public comment on this interim final rule and will
consider modifications to it based on comments made during the comment
period. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments
regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1

Cosmetics, Drugs, Exports, Food labeling, Imports, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
1 is amended as follows:

PART 1--GENERAL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1491; 21
U.S.C. 321, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335a, 343, 350c, 350d, 352, 355,
360b, 362, 371, 374, 381, 382, 393; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 243, 262,
264.

0
2. Section 1.378 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 1.378 What criteria does FDA use to order a detention?

An officer or qualified employee of FDA may order the detention of
any article of food that is found during an inspection, examination, or
investigation under the act if the officer or qualified employee has
reason to believe that the article of food is adulterated or
misbranded.

0
3. Section 1.393 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 1.393 What information must FDA include in the detention order?

(a) FDA must issue the detention order in writing, in the form of a
detention notice, signed and dated by the officer or qualified employee
of FDA who has reason to believe that such

[[Page 25542]]

article of food is adulterated or misbranded.
* * * * *

Dated: April 28, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-10953 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P

Michigan's power to zap townships - the end of Real Property? The Emergency Financial Manager law and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787

I found this writeup on the new Midwest 'financial martial law' system interesting enough to share. The crazy rationale for the horrible law in Michigan is that dissolved townships won't be burdened with debt? But what of the system of townships and property created in the Northwest Ordinance? What is the Northwest Ordinance? I though this argument by one Amy Washburn was worth sharing...The Michigan emergency financial manager (EFM) law and real property - what we're not yet being told by the media

See also YouTube - Rachel Maddow: Michigan's Dystopian (Corporate Republican) Future And Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine and more recently YouTube - Maddow on Emergency Manager Takeover of Benton Harbor, Michigan. The emergency financial manager law is a huge scam to accelerate the typical eminent domain for rich people schemes - in their pilot case, stealing Benton Harbor's big park and putting stupid rich people homes and a golf course there. Because it's an emergency!!

*********

Storm the Boards! Applications Nearly Due for Compensated Citizen Slots on Panels and Agencies

I spent quite a while writing up all the open boards and appointments in Minnesota. The official post is here -

http://tc.indymedia.org/2010/nov/storm-boards-applications-nearly-due-compensated-citizen-slots-panels-and-agencies

Just for fun I'll crosspost the whole thing below. Worth yr efforts to get engaged! I posted the full job listing here.


By Dan Feidt for Twin Cities IndymediaDozens of positions on many government panels and committees are open today – but of course this isn’t widely publicized. Some panels pay salaries, others daily expenses or nothing at all. Community members might, or might not, not be able to dramatically shake up obscure panels, but still it’s a good type of post to pick up what’s going on – or how reality becomes bureaucratically remapped. Labor, nonprofit and environmental groups all could easily pick up assigned seats.

Applications are due for consideration November 23rd. The vacancy listings, at the Secretary of State website, include “representative who works in Bicycle Industry” for the Nonmotorized Transportation Advisory Committee, one “Member with Knowledge of Mixed Martial Arts” for the Minnesota Combative Sports Commission, members of the public for the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, the Chicano Latino Affairs Council, the Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans, and the Council on Black Minnesotans. Have you got what it takes to be the State Arts Board Member-At-Large?

Below the fold - A few lols, dozens of open panels & Info for sending applications via the SOS website.

Syndicate content