23 May 2012

Iran summons Azerbaijan envoy for insults to Islam

RETURN to the BlackNET Intellignce Channel - OPEN SOURCE

Fox News - Fair & Balanced

Published May 22, 2012

Associated Press

Iran has summoned neighboring Azerbaijan's envoy and recalled its own ambassador from Baku for consultations over what it describes as the Azeri government's "insults to the sanctities" of Islam.

Iranian clerics have denounced Azerbaijan for hosting the upcoming Eurovision song festival and for allegedly permitting gay rallies, which are banned in Iran.
Baku, however, has never staged a gay pride parade.

The official IRNA news agency said Tuesday that a protest note was delivered to Azerbaijan's Ambassador Javanshir Akhundov.

Oil-rich Azerbaijan has nurtured close relations with the U.S. and played an active role in Western-led counter-terrorist programs. That foreign policy has placed a strain on its ties with Iran, which hosts a sizable ethnic Azeri community.

[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

22 May 2012

Judith Miller: Egypt votes this week - what nation will emerge?

RETURN to the BlackNET Intellignce Channel- OPEN SOURCE
Member CONTRIBUTION                                 

by Judith Miller
The New York Post
May 20, 2012

CAIRO — When Egyptians go to the polls Wednesday and Thursday, they will be choosing not only Egypt's first democratically elected president, but also the future identity and political direction of their country.
In selecting among the 13 candidates, Egyptians will be deciding whether they want their ancient nation to be secular or Islamic, but also whether it will be governed by "revolutionary" or "feloul" policies and values.
"Feloul," one of those memorable Egyptian-Arabic words, translates as "remnants" — like the scraps left on your dinner plate — or what Egyptians now call those connected with the despised Hosni Mubarak regime. Despite their insistence on labeling the political uprisings of January 2011 that ousted Mubarak's regime in just 18 days a "revolution," many Egyptians doubt that the election will shift all political power from military to civilian rule.
Fifteen months after Egyptians toppled Mubarak's 30-year rule, the euphoria surrounding the dramatic uprisings in Tahrir Square has largely evaporated. Tourism, along with foreign exchange reserves and other crucial economic indices, has plunged. While many Egyptians have relished political debate that was unimaginable in Mubarak's day, others told me they would not bother to vote because the military-led transitional government and Islamist-dominate parliament had failed to improve their lives or Egypt's prospects.
Disruptions from street protests and strikes have become routine. Street crime, still low by western standards, is rising. The political winds in the most populous, strategically vital of Arab nations are shifting daily, even hourly.
While there are few scientifically based polls, most analysts predict that the race will come down to a choice between Abdel Moneim Abou el-Fatouh, 60, the Islamist who broke away from the Muslim Brotherhood and has struggled to portray himself as a "moderate" alternative; non-Islamist candidate Ahmed Shafiq, an ex-Air Force chief who revived Egypt Air and was Mubarak's last lackluster prime minister; or Amr Moussa, 75, a former Arab League president and foreign minister under Mubarak who is perceived by Egyptians as embracing more "secular" values.
But experts may be underestimating the mobilization capacity of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose delivery of vital goods and services to Egypt's poor has given the 84-year-old organization discipline and staying power. Though the Brotherhood's nominee, Mohammad Morsi, is a fall-back candidate devoid of charisma, he should not be written off.
In interviews last week, candidates and party leaders seemed to find vagueness a virtue. Few of them had concrete, realistic proposals for addressing Egypt's staggering debt or reviving its moribund economy.
Several vowed to solve Egypt's projected $11 billion budget gap in the next 18 months by "ending corruption" and seizing assets of wealthy investors who allegedly benefited from proximity to Mubarak and his sons.
Khairat al-Shater, an imposing self-made businessman who is the Brotherhood's de facto leader and might well have been elected president had Egypt's judiciary not barred him from running, acknowledged that Egypt faces economic crisis. But he said Egypt's woes could be resolved by "exporting workers" to other Arab states, "enhancing the private sector," "strengthening tourism services and marketing" and transforming Egypt from an "exporter of raw materials to processed goods."
The country's innumerable political parties make predicting the outcome of the first round of voting perilous. A second round will ensue in June if, as anticipated, none of the 13 contenders receives a majority of the popular vote.
But even some liberal secularists told me they were supporting Fatouh, the independent Islamist, because he had championed the revolution and favored "revolutionary" policies to advance "social justice" — that is, an even greater role for the top-heavy Egyptian state in creating and distributing wealth.
Conversely, some Islamists who embrace favor stability have crossed religious-political lines to support ex-minister Moussa, whom critics deride as "feloul." To their supporters, however, "feloul" candidates like Moussa and the military's current favorite, Shafiq, represent stability — a return to law-and-order predictability.
"But their 'good ol' days' are not the economic reformist 1990s when Egypt liberalized political life, privatized the economy and loosened trade restrictions," warned Amr Bargisi, the head of an Egyptian group that promotes civil society. "Many in this crowd favor a return to the 1980s, when Egypt's jails were full and the economy was a largely state-run preserve."
Many Egyptians warned me that Fatouh, the alternative Islamist, was no moderate. Though he split from the Brotherhood when it initially refused to field a candidate for president and claims to represent a more enlightened Islam, he has been endorsed by some of the ultra-conservative "Salafists" who won a shocking 27% of the parliament's seats last year.
While Fatouh has espoused many liberal positions — he says, for instance, that a Christian can be president — his ultimate goal remains the peaceful transformation of Egypt into an Islamic state.
One of Egypt's few unifying memes, meanwhile, is opposition to Israel. Last year, even some liberal, secular parties sent supporters to surround the Pyramids to protect them from an ostensible Zionist "plot" to levitate and destroy the ancient tombs through incantation. But no leading candidate favors abandoning Egypt's peace treaty obligations.
What makes the presidential contest semi-surreal is its lack of definition. Egypt has not re-written its constitution or decided whether the new leader will head a presidential or parliamentary system. Nor has the interim government defined the chief executive's powers.
For months, the military-dominated executive has warred with the Islamist, Brotherhood-led parliament, often producing stalemate. Some of its actions have compounded Egypt's woes. Despite a soaring budget deficit, it increased wages for government employees and expanded its inefficient, 6-million strong public sector by close to a million people. A witch hunt against economic reformers and private investors — accused in mock military trials of being part of Mubarak's "corrupt" coterie — has depressed foreign investment, down from $13 billion in 2008 to $200 million in late 2011.
Some doubt that the military will let the Islamists take total power. Behind closed doors, the military has been demanding a continued say in key national security decisions, immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes committed during Mubarak's rule and the protection of its considerable economic stake — estimates range from 15% to 40% of the GDP. Almost all political parties seem ready to meet those terms, analysts say, even the Brotherhood.
Al-Shater claims to have rejected a deal. So has Fatouh. But Shater predicted that the military would do whatever it could to prevent the Brotherhood from gaining power. "They will cancel the elections if they think that Morsi will win," he told me.
That is unlikely. But much depends on whether Egypt's politically disengaged masses — the so-called "revolution of the couch"— plus those dependent on tourism, families of the army and security services, Christians and others who crave a return to stability — turn out to vote. A low-turnout almost guarantees a Muslim Brotherhood or Islamist victory.
"For 80 years we've been here, supporting the poor with free schools, food and low-cost hospitals," Shater says. "Their trust is only logical."

[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

20 May 2012

Exclusive: Did White House "spin" tip a covert op?

-RETURN to the BlackNET Intellignce Channel - OPSEC- OPEN SOURCE
VS/2; US/1; ATTN:                                      Member CONTRIBUTION

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Fri May 18, 2012 12:46pm EDT (Friday Memory Hole)

(Reuters) - White House efforts to soft-pedal the danger from a new "underwear bomb" plot emanating from Yemen may have inadvertently broken the news they needed most to contain.

At about 5:45 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 7, just before the evening newscasts, John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top White House adviser on counter-terrorism, held a small, private teleconference to brief former counter-terrorism advisers who have become frequent commentators on TV news shows.

According to five people familiar with the call, Brennan stressed that the plot was never a threat to the U.S. public or air safety because Washington had "inside control" over it.

Brennan's comment appears unintentionally to have helped lead to disclosure of the secret at the heart of a joint U.S.-British-Saudi undercover counter-terrorism operation.

A few minutes after Brennan's teleconference, on ABC's World News Tonight, Richard Clarke, former chief of counter-terrorism in the Clinton White House and a participant on the Brennan call, said the underwear bomb plot "never came close because they had insider information, insider control."

A few hours later, Clarke, who is a regular consultant to the network, concluded on ABC's Nightline that there was a Western spy or double-agent in on the plot: "The U.S. government is saying it never came close because they had insider information, insider control, which implies that they had somebody on the inside who wasn't going to let it happen."


The next day's headlines were filled with news of a U.S. spy planted inside Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), who had acquired the latest, non-metallic model of the underwear bomb and handed it over to U.S. authorities.

At stake was an operation that could not have been more sensitive — the successful penetration by Western spies of AQAP, al Qaeda's most creative and lethal affiliate. As a result of leaks, the undercover operation had to be shut down.

The initial story of the foiling of an underwear-bomb plot was broken by the Associated Press.

According to National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, due to its sensitivity, the AP initially agreed to a White House request to delay publication of the story for several days.

But according to three government officials, a final deal on timing of publication fell apart over the AP's insistence that no U.S. official would respond to the story for one clear hour after its release.

When the administration rejected that demand as "untenable," two officials said, the AP said it was going public with the story. At that point, Brennan was immediately called out of a meeting to take charge of damage control.

Relevant agencies were instructed to prepare public statements and urged to notify Congressional oversight panels. Brennan then started the teleconference with potential TV commentators.

White House officials and others on the call insist that Brennan disclosed no classified information during that conference call and chose his words carefully to avoid doing so.

The AP denies any quid pro quo was requested by them or rejected by the White House. "At no point did AP offer or propose a deal with regard to this story," said AP spokesman Paul Colford.

As for his appearance on ABC, Richard Clarke acknowledges he made a logical "leap" when he said that "inside control" meant "there was human inside control rather than anything else I could imagine." But he adds that over the course of a week, ABC "took extraordinary measures ... to make sure" that nothing it was planning to broadcast would damage ongoing counter-terrorism operations.


As a result of the news leaks, however, U.S. and allied officials told Reuters that they were forced to end an operation which they hoped could have continued for weeks or longer.

Several days after the first leaks, counter-terrorism sources confirmed to Reuters that a central role in the operation had been played by MI-5 and MI-6, Britain's ultra-secretive domestic and foreign intelligence services, whose relationship with their American counterparts has been periodically strained by concern about leaks.

These sources acknowledged that British authorities were deeply distressed that anything at all had leaked out about the operation.

The White House places the blame squarely on AP, calling the claim that Brennan contributed to a leak "ridiculous."

"It is well known that we use a range of intelligence capabilities to penetrate and monitor terrorist groups," according to an official statement from the White House national security staff.

"None of these sources or methods was disclosed by this statement. The egregious leak here was to the Associated Press. The White House fought to prevent this information from being reported and ultimately worked to delay its publication for operational security reasons. No one is more upset than us about this disclosure, and we support efforts to prevent leaks like this which harm our national security," the statement said.

The original AP story, however, made no mention of an undercover informant or allied "control" over the operation, indicating only that the fate of the would-be suicide bomber was unknown.

The White House may ultimately have to explain its handling of the case both to Congressional oversight committees and to leak investigations the administration itself has launched.

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Mike Rogers, announced a "preliminary review" of leaks about the operation.

Two leak investigations have been opened by the executive branch as well, one by the Director of National Intelligence and one by the FBI.

On Wednesday, FBI director Robert Mueller, appearing before the Senate Judiciary committee, promised the bureau would "investigate thoroughly..."

CONTINUE Reading Full Story HERE…

(Reporting By Mark Hosenball; Editing by Warren Strobel and Jim Loney)

[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

17 May 2012

BKNT Member ALEX QUADE's World premiere of "HORSE SOLDIERS OF 9/11"

  RETURN to the BlackNET Intellignce Channel -OPEN SOURCE

PurePURSUIT; US/1; ATTN:CNN/2                                 Member CONTRIBUTION
 [ed.note: BRAVO ZULU Alex!]

Many congratulations to Alex for this film! 

In the words of one soldier: "Alex has done something that most journalists never get to do; to cover Special Forces and Rangers first hand. These organizations are very hard to get any information out of because of the nature of their mission. The trust that these unit's have in Alex speaks for itself."

Horse Soldiers of 9/11

Narrated by award-winning actor Gary Sinise, come along for the ride with the Horse Soldiers of 9/11.
It was the news the world breathlessly waited for immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks: a report of the first American troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

All at once, the world’s attention focused on an iconic photo of small teams of U.S. Special Operations Forces doing something no American military had done in nearly a century: ride horses into combat.

That photo would go on to inspire an artist to sculpt an 18ft tall monument at Ground Zero, ten years later.

The courage of the first into battle is what guarantees the courage of those that follow: “Horse Soldiers Of 9/11”… a film by war reporter Alex Quade.

Attached is press release for the documentary which debuts on Sunday 20 May 6:45pm at GI Film Festival in Washington, DC at the Navy Heritage Center.

This information is provided by PURE PURSUIT INTELLIGENCE CENTER, as a service to Military and Air Defense Communities with the purpose of offering relevant and timely information on (open source) defense, aviation, emergency, law enforcement and terrorism issues. Posts may be forwarded to other individuals, organizations and lists for non-commercial purposes. This list is now closed
This is an INFORMATION list; this list is NOT secure.

About the Director

War Reporter Alex Quade covers U.S. Special Operations Forces on combat missions downrange. She is the recipient of the Congressional Medal Of Honor Society’s “Tex McCrary Award For Excellence In Journalism” for her war reportage.

The Medal of Honor recipients present the award to individuals who, through their life’s work, have distinguished themselves by service or unbiased coverage of the United States Military through journalism. Prior recipients of this prestigious award include legendary broadcasters Tom Brokaw, Mike Wallace, Tim Russert, Paul Harvey, and author Joe Galloway.

The Congressional Medal of Honor Society recognized Ms.Quade, “for her courageous reporting and honest news coverage”.

Quade worked at Fox News Channel before heading overseas in 1998 to cover war zones and hostile environments as a freelancer, mainly for CNN. Extreme storytelling and silent risk-taking lie at the heart of what she does. As a “one-man-band”, she embeds with elite combat units several months at a time, producing exclusive, long-form, special series and documentaries.

Quade’s commitment to providing viewers “ground truth” behind the world’s conflict zones has kept her “boots on the ground”. For her award-winning “Brothers In Arms” for CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now”, Quade followed an Army National Guard family for 18-months, from Idaho to Iraq, and back. Following the program’s airing on CNN, President George W. Bush publicly recognized the family for their bravery.

Quade’s dedication to giving voice to those in the fight is evident in “Hunting IEDs” for CNN’s “The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer” and CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360″. Her series gave viewers their first inside look at a dangerous Marine Platoon mission in Fallujah. The U.S. Department of Defense Joint IED Defeat Task Force has used her piece as a case study.

In “Combat Search And Rescue” for CNN’s “The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer” and “The Glenn Beck Show” on Headline News (HLN), Quade shared high-risk rescue missions from the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan with U.S. Special Operations Forces.

Alex Quade has been embedded with every branch of the U.S. military, and serves on the Board of Military Reporters and Editors, the Association of Military Journalists.


[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

16 May 2012

NSA Analyst: "We Could Have Prevented 9/11"

US/1; ATTN  

Washington Spectator  Posted: 05/14/2012 4:05 pm

Thomas Drake, a brilliant intelligence analyst, software engineer, and IT management consultant, worked at the CIA in the 1980s, then as a contractor at the National Security Agency (NSA), and ultimately as an NSA senior executive in 2001. But from 2006 until July 2011, he became the government's and NSA's public enemy.

Why? From his high-level perch at NSA, he saw the failure to act on intelligence that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and he saw corruption at the highest levels.
So he blew the whistle. Four times, from the fall of 2001 through 2004. 

Once to both the House and Senate Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence. Once to two Congressional investigations seeking answers to the intelligence failures surrounding 9/11, including what NSA knew, didn't know, could have known, and did or didn't do. Drake was asked to be a material witness for a Congressional investigation, initially led by then-Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). He was instructed not to tell NSA that he was cooperating with the investigation.

The fourth time was in September 2002, when Drake submitted a complaint through a Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) "Defense Hotline" that allows whistleblowers to report fraud. The call launched an audit of the way NSA awarded multibillion-dollar contracts and managed some of its programs. This time, Drake first alerted supervisors, who either sat on the information or pulled him off key assignments.

When the DoD IG audit went nowhere, he took what he knew -- none of it classified -- to The Baltimore Sun

After Drake went to the media, the FBI raided his home in 2007, seizing computers, books, and other material.

Ultimately, he was cast from the intelligence kingdom and charged with 10 felony counts in April 2010, five under the 1917 Espionage Act. "I got in the way of the power structure," he explains. 

Some of his story appeared in newspapers, The New Yorker, blogs, and a 60 Minutes segment, describing how the FBI raided his home and dug for documents to prove he'd passed information to two New York Times' reporters about the White House illegal wiretapping program and other offenses. Although the FBI never found such evidence, the Justice Department indicted him.

I asked Drake if there was more the public had to know. "Definitely," he said, but under the government-initiated plea negotiations, he couldn't say anything new until after his sentencing date last July. Otherwise, the government could have used it against him at the trial.

Once the case against him collapsed, prosecutors agreed to drop all 10 counts against Drake; he plead guilty to a minor misdemeanor for "exceeding authorized use of a computer [!]," with no jail time or fines.

The result, however, was a life severelBaray wrecked. Drake has worked at an Apple store since August 2009.

This is what he told us.

Barbara Koeppel: What did you tell the Saxby Chambliss Congressional subcommittee and the Congressional Joint Inquiry?

Thomas Drake: I can't say fully, because it's classified. But I showed that NSA knew a great deal about the 9/11 threats and Al Qaeda, electronically tracking various people and organizations for years -- since its role is to collect intelligence. The problem is, it wasn't sharing all of the data. If it had, other parts of government could have acted on it, and more than likely, NSA could have stopped, I say stopped 9/11. Later, it could have located Al Qaeda -- at the very time the U.S. was scouring Afghanistan.

It's true that there were systemic failures throughout the intelligence system, but NSA was a critical piece of it. I gave both committees prima facie evidence, with documents. One was an early 2001 NSA internal, detailed multi-year study of Al Qaeda and sympathetic groups' movements that revealed what NSA knew, could have done, and should have done. It was astonishingly well-analyzed current intelligence. Soon after 9/11, some NSA analysts called me about it. Why? Because they were pulling their hair out, knowing they had this information and they couldn't get NSA leadership to share the report with the rest of the intelligence community -- even though it's mandatory! It was actionable information. Remember the time period--we were in the early part of the war in Afghanistan. People needed to act on it, to unravel Al Qaeda networks.

But NSA leaders deliberately decided not to disseminate it. So the analysis -- about what it knew before and after 9/11 -- got buried very deeply, because it would really have made them look bad.

In fact, after the analysts called me to complain, I told my superior, Maureen Baginski, Director of Signals Intelligence (called SIGINT), who was the number-three person at NSA. But instead of acting on it, she got mad at me. She said, "Tom, I wish you'd never brought this to my attention."

BK: Why?

TD: Because she no longer had plausible deniability.
BK: And then?

TD: I said, Mo (that's what we called her), I'm bringing it to your attention because it's information we need to share. This is key to Al Qaeda's position. But she folded. She was going to protect the institution. Screw national security.

BK: Talk more about the Congressional investigations.

TD: The Saxby Chambliss subcommittee began its hearings in February and March 2002. It had subpoena power and contacted me off the record, because it was investigating NSA. I gave both the subcommittee and the subsequent, much larger Joint Inquiry voluminous amounts of information.

BK: What did they do with it?

TD: I don't know. There's a report, but it's classified. I never saw it. And the public got just a small version of the data I gave them. In fact, there's very little oversight in Congress anymore. When there is, it's essentially just talk.

BK: How did NSA react to the investigations?

TD: It did everything it could to obstruct them so it could hide what it knew. I remember hearing from Lt. General Michael Hayden, NSA's director, while the investigations were under way, saying how "convenient" it was for CIA and FBI to be taking the heat, while we remained in the shadows. I'm paraphrasing, but NSA knew a lot.

BK: How did NSA obstruct them?

TD: First, it asked the committee investigators to set up their office at NSA, where the agency could put minders, NSA people who would sit and take notes. But the committee refused.

BK: Other ways?

TD: NSA set up what we called the "war room," to figure out how to respond to the Saxby Chambliss investigation. The joke was, 'Who are we at war with? Congress or terrorists?'

Then in February, Mo asked me to lead an NSA team, to go around the agency pulling together information about what NSA knew that it could give to the subcommittee as its official classified statement, for the record.

So I wrote the statement, which went through multiple drafts. Later, I was in England on another assignment, and I got a frantic call from one of my staff, saying, "Tom, they pulled us off the effort and re-assigned it to someone else." I asked why. "Well, it's confusing, you'll have to ask Mo." When I got back, the first thing I did was ask her why we were taken off. She said, "Data integrity." This was a euphemism.

BK: A euphemism for what?

TD: That there was a problem with the data. But there wasn't a problem. They just didn't want it out there. Congress was asking us to take our clothes off, come clean, say we screwed up, and how we would fix it.

But NSA chose not to do that. Instead, it persisted in the cover-up and didn't tell about the staggering amounts of information it had in its data banks and didn't share. When it's being investigated, it closes ranks. To say they were not cooperating with the 9/11 investigations is an understatement

NSA created a secret team that reported to Bill Black, the Agency's deputy director, whose task was to find the agency's 9/11 skeletons. Why? In case you're put on the stand, you want to know where you're vulnerable so you have an answer, or can create one to serve as a cover. The idea is, NSA only tells Congress what it wants them to hear, and Congress will just have to figure out what it really knows. The problem is, how will Congress find something unless it knows what it's looking for and where to find it? And if NSA can keep it hidden, Congress' chances of finding it are slim to none.

BK: Are there other ways it obstructed?

TD: A dramatic one. It happened in early 2002, when Mo warned me, "Be careful, they're looking for leakers." What she meant was, "Back off! Don't say anything more to Congress than you need to." But I wasn't leaking to the press, or outside of channels. I was a material witness in official investigations of NSA!

BK: Then why call it "leaking"?

TD: They were calling it that. For NSA's purpose, it's leaking. Me, I'm serving as a material witness to Congress, which called me to do that. I didn't go to them.

BK: If it wanted to, could NSA follow your trail?

TD: Easily. Bread and butter. That's what they do. In fact, during this whole time, NSA was doing everything it could to figure out and track who was cooperating with the investigators or called as material witnesses.

BK: Why was it so important for NSA to hide what it knew?

TD: Because NSA is a closed, secret culture. Its primary focus is collecting data, even within the intelligence community.

The coin of the realm is what you know. If I share something with you, then I don't have power any more. So why would I give my power away? Because we collect the data, we own it. If we own it, we control it. If we control it, we can say what it means. 

We tell you what we want to, or not. I used to hear that in executive sessions, post-9/11. Other agencies were clamoring for the raw or nearly raw data, to do their own analyses. And NSA was balking because "we don't know what they're going to do with it."

BK: But wouldn't NSA want to prevent a 9/11 or track Al Qaeda?

TD: That's logical thinking. You have to remember, NSA is an institution, and it preserves its integrity before anything else. Rule number one. It's pathological. It's what I call the deep, dark side of this culture, one that has rarely been discussed. Everything is secret. Over decades, people work, communicate, and engage in secret. Obviously, certain state secrets are legitimate, but this goes way beyond that. The agency thinks, if it gives away information, it's fragmenting its identity. In fact, even before 9/11, NSA reprimanded people for cooperating with other parts of the intelligence community.

BK: Do other intelligence agencies operate the same way?

TD: Yes. When I was at CIA, I worked in the Science and Technology directorate on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I was asked by people at its National Photographic Interpretation Center to look at pictures of WMD targets. I agreed, but I couldn't tell from the photos who was talking to whom without knowing more about the target. So I called my buddies at NSA -- because they have electronic and signals intelligence -- to find out, and they told me what they knew. But the people I worked with at CIA said, "Why did you call them? You have everything you need right here." Well, I didn't. It's so arrogant, to say you can't learn from others. But this is the culture. And it's even worse at NSA.

Barbara Koeppel is a Washington-based investigative reporter. This article has been slightly edited for space; subscribe to The Washington Spectator to read the second part of this report, addressing evidence of corruption that Thomas Drake turned over to investigators.
CONTINUE Reading Full Story HERE...

[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

CyBER-BlackSEC Debate

BlackNIGHT Target Practice

SEAL Team SIX - Iron Will from CBS News

The Devil's Advocate?

In 1991, [the late former Secretary of State Lawrence 'Just call me George'] Eagleburger explained to The Post why all of his sons were named Lawrence.

“First of all, it was ego,” he said. “And secondly, I wanted to screw up the Social Security system.”