Archive for October, 2008

I found out about this site,, while browsing one of my favorite sites, Subtopia. It’s like the Google Maps of government spending. Here is one frame from the huge interactive map:

-Military Investigates Amnesia Beams.

Posted: October 31, 2008 in 2008, Articles

Danger Room:

Neuralizer_2A team of scientists from the United States and China announced last week that, for the first time, they had found a means of selectively and safely erasing memories in mice, using the signaling molecule αCaMKII. It’s a big step forward, and one that will be of considerable interest to the military, which has devoted efforts to memory manipulation as a means of treating post-traumatic stress disorder. But some military research has moved in another direction entirely.

In the 1980s, researchers found that even low-level exposure to a beam of electrons caused rats to forget what had just happened to them (an effect known as retrograde amnesia — the other version, anteretrograde amnesia, is when you can’t form new memories). The same effect was also achieved with X-rays. The time factor was not large — it only caused memory loss about the previous four seconds — but the effect was intriguing.

One theory was that the amnesia was a result of the brilliant flash experienced when the electron beam struck the retina. And, indeed, it turned out that it is possible to produce amnesia in rodents using a flash of light:

Retrograde amnesia was demonstrated for the 80-, 85-, and 100-V foot-shock test trials. At 40 V the voltage may not have been great enough to be felt by the subject. For groups examined at shock levels above 100 V, the foot shock was so potent that a photoflash was ineffective in producing RA. Our conclusion was that the photoflash was an effective amnesiac until the intensity of the foot shock became more potent than the photoflash; this is consistent with the recency theory generated in serial learning and memory tasks.

This might help explain some of the disorienting effects of strobe lights used as nonlethal weapons, but there seems to have been little further research on this.

However, there have been plenty of studies on the physical effects of radio and microwave exposure on the brain. Many of those investigations have been conducted by the military.

The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Human Effectiveness Directorate has carried out its own experiments in this area, which did not confirm the results of earlier studies suggesting that microwaves could cause memory loss. (The report is now removed from the AFRL website, alas.) Most scientists chalk up such effects to heating. But the Directed Energy Bioeffects division continues to research the human effects of various forms of radiation. What’s more, a 2003 paper on microwave effects on the nervous system, from a team that includes Navy and Air Force scientists, states that “research with isolated brain tissue has provided new results that do not seem to rely on thermal mechanisms.” It is hard to assess the real effect on working memory and other brain functions, they add.

“The many exposure parameters such as frequency, orientation, modulation, power density, and duration of exposure make direct comparison of many experiments difficult…. It is concluded that the diverse methods and experimental designs as well as lack of replication of many seemingly important studies prevents formation of definite conclusions concerning hazardous nervous system health effects from RF [radio frequency] exposure.”

Still, it’s interesting to see that the notes for a classified course run by the Directed Energy Professionals Society (the people who build laser and microwave weapons) include “memory loss” as a potential effect of such devices.

I doubt whether they have a functioning Men In Black-style “Neuralizer.” But as memory research continues to advance, it certainly starts to look like more of a possibility.

[Photo: Columbia Pictures]

Information that would reveal a violation of the law may be properly classified as long as it is not deliberately classified for the purpose of concealing the violation, a federal judge indicated this week.

That view, in a ruling (pdf) against the ACLU by DC District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, all but nullifies one of the principal limitations on national security secrecy contained in the executive order on classification policy.

In section 1.7 of executive order 12958, as amended, on “classification limitations and prohibitions,” the President directed that “In no case shall information be classified in order to … conceal violations of law….”

The ACLU cited this provision in a recent FOIA lawsuit to argue that transcripts of detainee tribunal hearings could not be properly classified under the executive order if they revealed evidence of prisoner abuse or other illegal conduct.  The court rejected that argument.

“Plaintiffs [ACLU] claim that some material was improperly classified because it may contain evidence that the government has violated the law,” Judge Lamberth wrote in an October 29 ruling.  “But plaintiffs misapprehend the Executive Order,” he wrote  (at page 6). “Executive Order 12958 prohibits classifying information ‘in order to … conceal violations of the law.’  However, there is no indication that these materials were classified ‘in order to’ conceal violations of the law….”

In other words, according to Judge Lambert, classifiers actually may conceal violations of the law as long as such concealment is not the specific purpose of the classification.

This narrow understanding of the executive order converts an important guarantee of the integrity of the classification process into an empty rhetorical gesture.

Under Judge Lamberth’s interpretation, the executive order provision limiting classification of violations of the law is not a limitation on the types of information that may be classified at all, but rather an unverifiable limitation on the classifier’s intention.  The provision is not concerned with the consequences of classification (i.e., the fact that criminal activity will be concealed from public knowledge) but instead focuses on the mental state of the classifier.  Did he or she specifically intend to conceal violations of the law?  If not, the classification may proceed, even if concealment is the inevitable result.  And since the classifier’s mental state is unknowable by others or may itself be concealed, the executive order’s limitation is deprived is of significant meaning.

In the past, the limitation on classification of violations of the law was construed more broadly as a public assurance that classification would not be used to conceal criminal activity by the government.  (It was never understood to require publication of information about third-party crimes collected through classified intelligence or law enforcement methods.)

In 2004, the Federation of American Scientists cited the provision in a complaint (pdf) filed with the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), contending that the Taguba report (pdf, classified SECRET) that found evidence of criminal abuses at Abu Ghraib prison was improperly classified.  ISOO, led by then-director J. William Leonard, undertook an investigation into the propriety of the report’s classification and reported some noteworthy results (pdf).  Not only was the Taguba report released in declassified form, but the Pentagon undertook a Department-wide initiative to improve classification training, management and oversight. The “motivation” in the mind of the classifier never came up.

The Secretary of Defense himself also issued a Department-wide memorandum (pdf) to remind classifiers of their responsibility to exercise classification authority properly, and he specifically cited the prohibition on classifying criminal activity.  In his September 16, 2004 memo, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld paraphrased the executive order limitation as follows:  “It is important to state that classifiers shall not… use classification to conceal violations of law….”

Interestingly, Secretary Rumsfeld did not use the phrase “in order to” which Judge Lamberth singled out to justify his interpretation of the order as a prohibition only on deliberate concealment.  The Rumsfeld paraphrase seems to reflect the prior understanding that classification should not be used “so as to” conceal violations of the law, regardless of the intentions of the classifier.

But if violations of the law may in fact be classified, then it is important for Americans to know that. If Judge Lamberth has made it easier for classifiers to conceal violations of the law, he also put the public on notice that this is how the national security classification system now functions.

Tonight I noticed thru the handy WordPress panel that Huffington Post linked to the site in reference to my old James Woolsey post:

*Neocon PNAC Member / CIA Director James Woolsey thumbed Iraq just 2 hours after 9/11

After seeing this I considered posting a link to the source of the cited NBC clip. When I looked at the site I noticed a lack of link for the time-slot in question. I then went and found the (rather rare) original raw news-feed clip, that I have, where I found the bit. I made an error on the time, as I’ll explain shortly, below. But it turns out he was actually on 2 hours early making the same link anyways.

The article is authored by Muhammad Sahimi, and is about McCain’s foreign policy advisors. It’s actually an important piece, the sort I’d consider reposting had I seen it and not be linking here now.

He cited my blog site here in reference to the James Woolsey Youtube clip I uploaded a long time ago and did that writeup. I found that clip from the 9/11 news archive. In February 2007 news happened, that implicated a backdoor to download raw quality MPG clips directly from the Archive’s archiving system. The Archive 9/11 stuff was rather unknown and I’m not even sure totally available, and these 1GB source clips weren’t meant for public consumption. So when the news broke during that whole ‘BBC reported WTC7 collapse before it did’ fiasco, some of us out there looked past the story and sought out where to find the clips.

So for less than 24 hours after the story went viral there was a limited window to grab whatever you could. From my take I found that portion inside there, later on. The filenames were quite different than how they’re now named at Archive. Those who took part in this ‘preservation of history’ effort ended up with rather random clips. Only a handful of complete sets of the ‘raw’ (not quite, but close) exist.

Here is the filename of the clip this post is all about:
V08554-10 nbc200109122209-2251.mpg

So that’s NBC, 2001, 09 (September), 12 (date), 2209-2251 (military time).

Somehow I slipped and mixed up the military time and confused that with it being 2:26 on 9/11, when it was actually 10:26 on 9/12. As I’ll point out below, Woolsey still made the link the same night only about 2 hours earlier.

On my bad, I’m not at all enjoying catching myself with such a ‘large’ error. In fact I wish someone would have spotted this mistake for me long ago. I’m sure I looked at the time more than once, but whatever happened I made the error, posted it, and never looked back. The ‘rarity’ of the situation helped it get overlooked by the sorts who would normally correct fouls, I suppose.

As was already present on Wikipedia, when I found my Woolsey clip, Woolsey did make the link to Iraq at 10:54 on the morning of 9/12. But now there is one clip posted on Youtube that might actually show Woolsey after midnight of 9/11 making the claim. This clip is stated to be “after midnight on 9/11”. Note that this timeslot isn’t available at But I do think it was from 9/12, as if you look at the ABC clip from 9/13 the anchors are different than the clip just before midnight on 9/11. [Another thing I find interesting is thatPeter Jennings mentioned that it was the second time ABC had him on that day (meaning 9/11).]

So this doesn’t hurt Sahimi’s article, in my view. Furthermore, Woolsey was one of the key Neocon drum beating war-hawks who was regularly on the nightly news of various networks screaming for war with Iraq in the early months directly after 9/11, as documented in Bill Moyer’s most excellent PBS presentation “Buying The War“.

Woolsey was a key instrument in propadandizing the population long before the Bush administration began parroting the ‘kill Iraq’ framework Woosley, Pearle and Kristol mantra. So it could be said that Woolsey and the other 2 should be charged before Bush & Cheney, or at least at the same Nuremberg show trial extravaganza.

I have many of the roughly 418 42-minute 1GB clips, but I haven’t played the Archive clips I don’t possess. Besides, it appears the clip now in question isn’t available, although I haven’t ever bothered comparing what is posted as quality-chopped streams at Archive with the master list of the original file set, that I do have. But since that time I have noticed many different news-feed uploads on the torrent networks, from time to time. I might even have that piece, although I have so much data I don’t have time ot look for it now. Note the Archive set is of what was broadcasted in DC.

Project Humanbeingsfirst:

This is a response to: The Federal Reserve Suck Machine is propelling US into ‘Neocommunism’.

Hello –

I would like to add to this analysis in a minor way to substantiate the point that its basis is indeed rooted in calculated pre-meditation. Thank you for putting it all together very well.

Norman Dodd confirmed this ‘devilishly’ calculated premeditation to G. Edward Griffin in 1982. For this revealing interview, and because of who Norman Dodd was, certainly not a ‘kookish tin-hatted conspiracy theorist’ – graduate of Andover and Yale, a banker and insider, and finally, a Congressional investigator – the world owes both Mr. Griffin, and posthumously to Mr. Dodd, a belated thank you.

video here / transcript here

Here is what Dodd says of what he learnt as the lead investigator, Director of Research, for the Reece Committee, chartered by Congress to look into the tax-exempt foundations. But before going into that, it is instructive to hear what Dodd revealed of a conversation in 1930, between him and Morgan Bank high officials, his bosses, in the aftermath of the crash of 1929, when upon being asked to do so, he had “rendered” a critical report on the stock market crash to his bank’s superiors. According to the paraphrase by Mr. Dodd of the Morgan bank official’s statement:

Norm what you’re saying is we should return to sound banking. … We will never see sound banking in the United States again. … Since the end of World War One we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests, and they are so prevalent inside this country that they can never be resolved.”

With that as the backdrop, this is what Norman Dodd says of a conversation he had with the President of the tax-exempt Ford Foundation in 1954 as part of his Congressionally mandated investigation of tax-exempt foundations:

Mr. Dodd, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of the foundations such as ourselves.” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on and said: “Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”

ED GRIFFIN: Why do the foundations generously support Communist causes in the United States?

NORMAN DODD: Well, because to them, Communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly, that is, an organization of, say, a large-scale industry into an administerable unit.

ED GRIFFIN: Do they think that they will be the ones to benefit?

NORMAN DODD: They will be the beneficiaries of it, yes.

Another interesting thread is when Dodd reveals of what his lead investigator discovered in the minutes-books of Carnegie Endowment for Peace. The following was recorded on the old-fashioned dictaphone machine by Katherine Casey as she was browsing the minutes-books in the CEP library:

We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.

So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”

Well, I doubt at that time if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then, finally, they answered that question as follows: “We must control the State Department.” That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.

Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, “we must control education in the United States.” They realize that that’s a pretty big task. It is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that that portion of education which could be considered domestic be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment. They then decide that the key to success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history. …

Project Humanbeingsfirst once again thanks both Mr. G. Edward Griffin, and posthumously, Mr. Norman Dodd, for their untiring efforts to uncover hidden agendas, even at the expense of being ignored. So was Socrates in his time.

The complex puzzle for the “Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy for World Government” [1] all comes together when viewed in this perspective, of socialism, communism, or ‘Neocommunism’ as the author of this article put it, that it is the not-so-hidden an agenda.

The agenda is empirical – and each time there is a bust, the banksters consolidate their grip on ownership. The WB-IMF [1a] tag team [through its structural-lending magic] owns pretty much all the developing nations’ assets, including the Amazon Basin (as I have been told, I haven’t actually confirmed the latter item, but indeed have numbers to substantiate the general claim). In the developed nations, the con is committed through the private central banks ending up owning all the real assets of the nation by owning the National Debt.

The agenda then, which is fully empirical and undeniable – except by the world’s E-con-omists who win their Nobel Prizes that way by perpetuating gibberish [2] – is to manifestly own all the planet’s resources and land, to manage it centrally in a world-government, and have all the peoples of the planet, except the owners, and perhaps the Ayn Rand’s ‘manager’ class, become paid serfs, serving the interests of the real global land/wealth/asset owners.

That, my dear fellow travelers on Earth, is the end game!

But as a wise man once said – there is many a slip between the cup and the lip.





Zahir Ebrahim