It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Programs That The Gov Claims Are Aimed At 'Foreign Enemies' Are Being Used Against U.S. Citizens

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Programs That The Gov Claims Are Aimed At Foreign Enemies Are Being Used Against U.S. Citizens


www.opednews.com

The U.S. government has repeatedly claimed that it was launching aggressive programs solely at foreign enemies, and then launched them at American citizens. For example:

In 2002, the Pentagon announced that it was considering spreading false propaganda in the foreign press. However, the military has spread propaganda within the U.S. in an operation so aggressive that one participant, a military analyst, called it "psyops on steroids"
For many years, the government has claimed that it was only spying on foreigners. But it is now clear that the government is massively spying on American citizen's home and cellphone calls, email and internet usage, credit card and other financial transactions, and just about every other facet of our personal lives.
Can anyone see a pattern here?

Given the above, should we believe that the following programs will just be limited to foreigners?

The Pentagon is running an artificial intelligence program to see how people will react to propaganda and to government-inflicted terror. The program is called Sentient World Simulation:
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 14-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

[edit on 14-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Another interesting read that outlines the "say one thing, do another" mentality of our ever-increasing fascist regime of Pinnochioticians. I would encourage everyone to click on the links and examine the different programs and judge for yourself whether this is cause for alarm or not. I certainly have seen a pattern developing here amongst these tyrannical oppressionists over the past several years that makes me quite uneasy...



And as former former Congressman Dan Hamburg and others have pointed out:
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees."
But many people have pointed out that the laws governing the program are so vague that they could lead to the imprisonment of American citizens for simply speaking out against the government (see also this)

Actions which the government claims were launched against non-U.S. citizens have in the past been used against Americans within the United States. Why should we believe any differently about its new, even more tyrannical programs?


www.opednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 14-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Another great find DD.

I wonder how the computer simulation will react to the leaking of this news? Or was that pre-planned as well?

Get ready America, this might be your last free election. After all, to dissent is criminal.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Well Dimentionaldetective, you sure do not hide your hate for the republicans. Your threads prove that. I was just wandering, as I try to figure out why all the polorizing discussions you start, would you feel the same if the Dems were in power and responsable for this? If the Democrats get into the white house next term will you scrutinize their every action? Will you call Obama/Hilary the childish and ignorant names you call the current administration?

By the way, I am not affiliated with any political party, since I like having the freedom to choose for myself. Just wanted to know where you came from since you post the same type of threads over and over.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by eyes2open
 


This shows that you have not read enough of my posts. If you had, you'd see that I hold equal contempt for BOTH of these putrid parties. In fact, I find it laughable that folks are still bickering over "bi-partisan semantics"...There is no longer ANY difference between these parties!! They are all one giant, cohesive, entirely corrupt bunch of liars and criminals.

Go read my threads on War-profiteering, then come back and tell me that I'm buying into this "This side is better than that side" nonsense. Right now the Bush Cabal is fouling up the White house, but I have no doubt that the next group that has been hand selected for us-Demo or repub--will continue carrying on this tradition of Elitist vested interests.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyes2open
Well Dimentionaldetective, you sure do not hide your hate for the republicans. Your threads prove that. I was just wandering, as I try to figure out why all the polorizing discussions you start, would you feel the same if the Dems were in power and responsable for this?


But they're not. Republicans ARE. Big difference. I, for one, would be against it either way--but that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are consistent in their belief that this type of action is wrong, while conservatives applaud this as necessary when Republicans do it and scream their heads off when it's Democrats.


If the Democrats get into the white house next term will you scrutinize their every action?


I sure as Hell will.


Will you call Obama/Hilary the childish and ignorant names you call the current administration?


If they engage in the same childish, ignorant, and arrogant behaviour, Hell Yes!!


By the way, I am not affiliated with any political party, since I like having the freedom to choose for myself. Just wanted to know where you came from since you post the same type of threads over and over.


Maybe because he's following the motto of this site to "Deny Ignorance", and exposing the Truth about what our government is doing?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Well I am glad to hear those responses. Not what I expected. May I say, without offence, calling people names during posts does make your argument clouded with hate, which may have given me an incorrect initial reflection of you. I value every opinion if it is presented in a respectful way. I guess I will never get tired of discussions and the sharing of ideas, just the bickering and name calling.

To each his own. Peace.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
This sounds rather dangerous to national security.

First, this article raises several points, and not all of them are necessarily related in scope. The Pentagon 'public outreach' program, for example, is distinctly different from data gather and analysis operations, especially with regard to directionality and determinability of information flow. In that case, it almost seems like asking for blow-back, such as NYT provided.

So that's a separate issue than the others mentioned -- data collection and external modeling.

Let's consider data collection for a moment, via a possible real-world example. Say an individual 1) acquires significant liquid funds, then 2) seeks information on a particular 'terrorist organization', and finally 3) transfers those funds to the aforementioned organization. How can the pieces of this puzzle be put together by law enforcement?

Certainly the 'step 3' transfer of funds, if detected, would raise quite a red flag! Or, perhaps, the illegal activity would NOT be detected, except by a combination of the 'evidence trail' of steps 1, 2, and 3. How can law enforcement handle this situation?

Step 1 and 2 (personal finances and information gathering) are not illegal, nor are they, in themselves, sufficient cause for active investigation. But, data gathered via 'monitoring and tracking' of those two activities would be very valuable, and sometimes necessary, to fulfilling law-enforcement responsibilities triggered by step 3.

How can this be done, without violating the law, Constitution, or human rights?

One hypothesis: via strictly compartmentalized access to automated data collection systems. So strict, in fact, that, without special and specific warrant, NO ONE can access such potentially innocuous data until the access can be legally justified by the probably cause of 'step 3'. Consider the possibility of isolated data warehousing and automated analysis systems, with stringent access and reporting protocols.

In such a system, EVERY piece of sigint is recorded, and available for analysis to the system, but such analysis never leaves the system (nor is the system directed) except under tightly controlled circumstances. Thus, the right of the people to be 'secure' in their papers, personal effects, etc., is not violated, as such potentially infringing data could never possibly affect an individual, if it were compartmentalized in a provably secure manner.

One alluring advantage of this hypothesis is that many public statements by government officials about 'timely access' and guarantees of protection make a lot more sense -- what previous seemed like obfuscated rhetoric and invisible hair splitting is actually valid argumentation, IF they have actual determinable provability of the efficacy of data compartmentalization and access control.

That's a big IF, however. Now, consider this 'Sentient World Simulation'. Could such a system, if 'perfected', closely parallel the data analysis generation of such 'real-world' data collection systems? Consider the implications!

How would such a system be 'evolved'? Generally, more powerful data analysis techniques are improved by iterative application of known data, the results compared to existing parallel analyses, and the measure of 'correctness' is used to improve the system.

The temptation would be to blindly apply the massive amounts of 'isolated' data to such a modeling system, and attempt to 'train' a world-model that can be utilized without restriction.

The danger, among others, would be that the training of such system would be essentially derived from the primary training data, and, as such, sophisticated analysis of the resultant system, and its behaviour, could reveal previously secure intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join