Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Pentagon Money Pit: $6.5 Trillion in Unaccountable Army Spending, and No DOD Audit for the Past Two Decades

By Dave Lindorff | This Can’t Be Happening! | August 10, 2016

What if the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services were to report that $6.5 billion in spending by that federal agency was unaccounted for and untraceable? You can imagine the headlines, right? What if it was $65 billion? The headlines would be as big as for the first moon landing or for troops landing on Omaha Beach in World War II.

But how about a report by the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General saying that the US Army had $6.5 trillion in unaccountable expenditures for which there is simply no paper trail? That is 6,500 billion dollars! Have you heard about that? Probably not. That damning report was issued back on July 26 — two whole weeks ago — but as of today it has not even been reported anywhere in the corporate media.

It’s not that it’s secret information, or hard to come by. The report is available online at the Department of Defense’s OIG website. And as it states:

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) (OASA[FM&C]) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis (DFAS Indianapolis) did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5 trillion in yearend JV adjustments made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation.2 The unsupported JV adjustments occurred because OASA(FM&C) and DFAS Indianapolis did not prioritize correcting the system deficiencies that caused errors resulting in JV adjustments, and did not provide sufficient guidance for supporting system‑generated adjustments.

In addition, DFAS Indianapolis did not document or support why the Defense Departmental Reporting System‑Budgetary (DDRS-B), a budgetary reporting system, removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million records during third quarter FY 2015. This occurred because DFAS Indianapolis did not have detailed documentation describing the DDRS-B import process or have accurate or complete system reports.

As a result, the data used to prepare the FY 2015 AGF third quarter and yearend financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail. Furthermore, DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions.

This dense bureaucrateze doesn’t mean that $6.5 trillion has been stolen, or that this is money in addition to the $600 billion that the Pentagon spent in fiscal 2015. It means that for years — and $6.5 trillion represents at about 15 years’ worth of US military spending — the Department of Defense (sic) has not been tracking or recording or auditing all of the taxpayer money allocated by Congress — what it was spent on, how well it was spent, or where the money actually ended up. There are enough opportunities here for corruption, bribery, secret funding of “black ops” and illegal activities, and of course for simple waste to march a very large army, navy and air force through. And by the way, things aren’t any better at the Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Incredibly, no mainstream reporter or editor in the US has seen this as a story worth reporting to the American public.

Just to give a sense of the scale of this outrage, consider that total federal discretionary spending in FY 2015 was just over $1.1 trillion. That includes everything from education ($70 billion), housing and community development ($63 billion), Medicare and health ($66 billion), veterans’ benefits ($65 billion), energy ($39 billion), transportation ($26 billion) and international affairs ($41 billion), and of course that $600 billion for the military.

All the other agencies that are responsible for those other outlays, like the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, etc., have been required by Congress since 1996 to file reports on annual audits of their budgets. The Pentagon was subject to that same act of Congress too, but for 20 years and running it has failed to do so. It has simply stonewalled, and so far has gotten away with it.

Nobody in Congress seems to care about this contempt of Congress. Neither of the two mainstream political candidates for president, Republican Donald Trump nor Democrat Hillary Clinton, seems to care either. Neither one has mentioned this epic scandal.

According to the OIG’s report, this problem actually goes back a generation, to 1991, five years before Congress even passed the law requiring all federal agencies to operate using federal accounting standards and to conduct annual audits, when the Government Accountability Office found “unsupported adjustments” were being made to the military’s financial statements during an audit of FY 1991 Army financial statements. Fully 17 years later, the Army, in its FY 2008 statement of Assurance on Internal Controls, said that the “weakness” found in 1991 “would be corrected by the end of FY 2011,” an outrageous decade later. But the OIG report goes on to say:

However, the FY 2015 Statement of Assurance on Internal Controls indicated this material weakness remained uncorrected and may not be corrected until third quarter 2017.

Such a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Pentagon, Congress and the media towards such a massive accounting failure involving trillions of dollars is simply mind-boggling, and yet there is nobody in Congress jumping up and down in the well of the House or or at Armed Services Committee hearings demanding answers and heads. No president or presidential candidate is denouncing this atrocity.

Aside from the political question of how much the US should actually be spending on the military — and clearly, spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on war and war preparedness is not justifiable — how can anyone, of any political persuasion, accept the idea of spending such staggering sums of money without insisting on any accountability?

Consider that politicians of both major political parties are demanding accountability for every penny spent on welfare, including demanding that recipients of welfare prove that they are trying to find work. Ditto for people receiving unemployment compensation. Consider the amount of money and time spent on testing students in public schools in a vain effort to make teachers accountable for student “performance.” And yet the military doesn’t have to account for any of its trillions of dollars of spending on manpower and weapons — even though Congress fully a generation ago passed a law requiring such accountability.

Phone and email requests to the DOD press office for the Office of Inspector General asking for comment went unanswered.

Mandy Smithberger, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), says, “Accounting at the Department of Defense is a disaster, but nobody is screaming about it because you have a lot of people in Congress who believe in more military spending, so they don’t really challenge military spending.” She adds, “You won’t see anything change unless Congress cuts the Pentagon budget in order to get results, and they’re not going to do that.”

She might have added that the reporters and editors and publishers of the corporate media also support military spending, so the media are not reporting on this scandal either, meaning that the public remains in the dark and unconcerned about it. Sure, the media will report on a $600 air force toilet seat and the public will be appropriately outraged, but there is no word about an untraceable $6.5 trillion in Army spending and no public outrage… except perhaps among those who read alternative publications like this one.

Enough! I don’t want to hear another complaint about government spending on welfare, education, environment, health care subsidies, immigrant benefits or whatever, until the Pentagon has to report on, account for and audit every dollar that it is spending on war.

No more free ride for the military.

August 11, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 3 Comments

US War Theories Target Dissenters

By Todd E. Pierce | Consortium News | September 12, 2015

When the U.S. Department of Defense published a new Law of War Manual (LOW) this past summer, editorialists at the New York Times sat up and took notice. Their concern was that the manual stated that journalists could be deemed “unprivileged belligerents.” The editorial explained that as a legal term “that applies to fighters that are afforded fewer protections than the declared combatants in a war.” In fact, it is far more insidious than that innocuous description.

Here is the manual’s definition: “‘Unlawful combatants’ or ‘unprivileged belligerents’ are persons who, by engaging in hostilities, have incurred one or more of the corresponding liabilities of combatant status (e.g., being made the object of attack and subject to detention), but who are not entitled to any of the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g., combatant immunity and POW status).”

The key phrase here is “being made the object of attack.” For slow-witted New York Times editorialists, that means journalists can be killed as can any enemy soldier in wartime. “Subject to detention” means a journalist deemed an unprivileged belligerent will be put into military detention if captured. As with any enemy belligerent, however, if “capture is not feasible,” they would be killed if possible, by drone perhaps if in a foreign country.

Currently, most U.S. captives deemed “unprivileged belligerents” are imprisoned in Guantanamo although some may be held in Afghanistan. It must be noted that the United States deems as an “unprivileged belligerent” anyone they target for capture or choose to kill.

That the New York Times’ concern only arose with publication of the new LOW manual suggests they may have been in a deep sleep since 9/11 as the Department of Defense (DOD) has openly worked to impose limitations on information sharing and news gathering since that event gave them a pretext. It is now a well-established pattern of the U.S. government to suppress rights guaranteed by the First Amendment whenever they can get by with it, as was seen with the New York Times own James Risen.

But the New York Times colluded with the CIA in censoring Risen’s reporting. Furthermore, they seemed to have ignored the U.S. government’s momentous argument of the unlimited power of the President to target journalists and activists for “expressive activities,” as the Department of Justice stated in the case of Hedges v. Obama, as described below.

It has frequently been noted there’s been an ongoing “war” against journalists since 9/11. The new DOD Law of War manual makes that official and potentially takes it to the highest level of conflict. While expressing concern, the Times’ editorialist does not seem to realize or care how ominous it is that the DOD now openly declares that journalists may be deemed “unprivileged belligerents,” unlawful combatants, as the DOD manual provides, instead of hiding the fact in coded language as done since 2001. Inherent to those classifications is that they represent the “enemy” and can be killed by U.S. officials.

That will come as no surprise to those acquainted with the foreign journalists who have been targeted and killed by drones in places such as Pakistan. Nor will it surprise Sami al-Hajj, the Al Jazeera journalist who was held in Guantanamo for years. But now it is clear that the same fate could be in store for U.S. journalists.

That coded language is embedded in the claim by Military Commissions prosecutors and the Justice Department that there is a “U.S. domestic common law of war.” What they claim is entirely based upon martial law orders of the Civil War and the military’s orders to remove Japanese-Americans from the their homes on the West Coast in World War II. All the cases they rely on for a “domestic law of war” today were judicially condemned during or almost immediately after the wars in which they were a part of.

U.S. Domestic Common Law of War

U.S. Military Commissions Chief Prosecutor Brig. General Mark Martins and his staff invented what they call the “U.S. domestic common law of war” in filings to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That invention consists only of the martial law precedents of the U.S. Civil War and the removal of the Japanese-Americans from the West Coast at the direction of General DeWitt. Both were later seen as examples of military despotism.

The American people have been inured by a deliberate effort of the U.S. military to accept invocation of the law of war as a talisman to permit any act by officials which would have been known as illegal before 9/11. But as the manual states: “Although the law of war is generally viewed as ‘prohibitive law,’ in some respects, especially in the context of domestic law, the law of war may be viewed as permissive or even as a source of authority. For example, the principle of military necessity in the customary law of war may be viewed as justifying or permitting certain acts.” (Emphasis added.)

“Military necessity” was the law of war basis for removal of the Japanese-Americans. Military necessity though indisputably a part of the law of war is a totalitarian precept when applied to a civilian population.

The LOW manual explains the object of war by quoting George H. Aldrich, Deputy Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State during the Vietnam War. He wrote of “a general acceptance of the view that modern war is aimed not merely at the enemy’s military forces but at the enemy’s willingness and ability to pursue its war aims. . . . In Viet-Nam political, rather than military, objectives were even more dominant. Both sides had as their goal not the destruction of the other’s military forces but the destruction of the will to continue the struggle.”

The “destruction of the will” of the adversary is always the object of war, according to Clausewitz and adopted by the U.S. military. But this has a totalitarian element to it; the adversary’s reciprocal object is to destroy our will. Consequently, “our” will must be protected by suppressing any dissent which could harm morale and the population’s willingness to “continue the struggle.”

That was the foundational belief underlying martial law during the Civil War. The Constitution was an obstacle again to suppressing dissent to a degree after the Civil War, but with the invention of a U.S. domestic common law of war and legalistic word play, this obstacle has once again been removed as the Justice Department argued in Hedges v. Obama.

The claim of being at war with internal and external enemies is always made by totalitarian states to justify their suppression of speech and a free press through repression. For a brief period in U.S. history, the Civil War, the U.S. military adopted military repression through martial law to suppress any dissent to its war practices.

Martial law was declared throughout the Union States, the North, on Aug. 8, 1862, by Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, at the request of President Abraham Lincoln. Orders were published to “arrest and imprison” any persons “discouraging volunteer enlistments” or “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” or for “any other disloyal practice.” A military commission would try the prisoners, and a second order “suspended” the writ of habeas corpus in their cases.

Martial law was more formally declared on Sept. 24, 1862, by President Lincoln himself in addition to suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Lieber’s Code was then prepared as the order giving effect to martial law. Contrary to how it is presented by the U.S. Army and credulous human rights commentators, Lieber’s Code was primarily a harsh martial law order with Prussian militarist law of war concepts introduced to the U.S. to criminalize any expressions of dissent as “war treason.”

Thus, Col. William Winthrop explained that among the greater number of individuals who were brought to trial before the military commissions during the Civil War, the offenses included “hostile or disloyal acts, or publications or declarations calculated to excite opposition to the federal government or sympathy with the enemy, etc.”

Whiting’s Guidance

Solicitor of the Department of War during the Civil War, William Whiting, gave legal guidance to the Union Commanders for enforcement of martial law. The “guidebook” was his own War Powers of the President. This book could have been used by any militaristic and totalitarian regime, which in fact it was as it was derived from authoritarian principles of martial law from Prussia. Those authoritarian principles remained in force under Prussia’s successor state, Germany, during two world wars, and were the legal basis of the infamous People’s Court which tried “war treason” cases; cases of “disloyal” expressive acts in most cases without more.

The guidance of Whiting was: “No person in loyal States can rightfully be captured or detained unless he has engaged, or there is reasonable cause to believe he intends to engage, in acts of hostility to the United States — that is to say, in acts which may tend to impede or embarrass the United States in such military proceedings as the commander-in-chief may see fit to institute.” This is the same argument that the U.S. government made in Hedges v. Obama.

What constituted an act of hostility? Whiting defines that to include a sentiment of hostility to the government “to undermine confidence in its capacity or its integrity, to diminish, demoralize . . . its armies, to break down confidence in those who are entrusted with its military operations in the field.”

An example of how martial law was to be carried out was in an order to a subordinate commander by the Army Department of the Pacific Commander in response to complaints from the Citizens of Solano County, California, of disloyal “utterances” they were hearing from fellow citizens.

The order read: “The department commander desires you to let the people understand generally that the order of the President suspending the writ of habeas corpus and directing the arrest of all persons guilty of disloyal practices will be rigidly enforced. . . . Practices injurious to the government or offensive to the loyal sentiment of the people will under no circumstances be permitted.”

Immediately after the Civil War, when it was freshest in their minds, the Supreme Court had this to say about martial law in Ex Parte Milligan: “What is ordinarily called martial law is no law at all. Wellington, in one of his despatches from Portugal, in 1810, in his speech on the Ceylon affair, so describes it. Let us call the thing by its right name; it is not martial law, but martial rule. And when we speak of it, let us speak of it as abolishing all law, and substituting the will of the military commander, and we shall give a true idea of the thing, and be able to reason about it with a clear sense of what we are doing.”

Martial law is a sub-part of the Law of War and since it is for application to a domestic population as with the Northern States during the Civil War by the Union Army, it is “moderated” ordinarily from the even harsher provisions of the Law of War which are now invoked in the Law of War manual. Yet precepts of both are being introduced domestically with Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and domestically and globally by the “U.S. domestic common law of war” precedents trumpeted by Chief Military Commissions Prosecutor, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins.

It must be noted that this is not to compare the Union unfavorably with the Confederacy. The Confederacy had the highest form of martial law: slavery. But the Defense Department only uses one legal precedent from the Confederacy today, which is “outlawry.”

Lieber’s Code addressed “outlawry” in Art. 148, which provided, in pertinent part: “The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, . . . on the contrary, it abhors such outrage.”

This was adopted in the Hague Regulations and as interpreted in earlier Army Law of Land Warfare manuals, prohibited assassinations as well as any declarations that an individual or group is outside the protection of the law of war, which is what designation as an unprivileged belligerent does. The prohibition of assassination has also been put aside with the routine practice of assassination with drones today by the U.S. military.

The Confederacy committed the offense of outlawry when its leaders declared all captured African-Americans fighting for the Union were outside the protection of the law of war (which did preexist Lieber’s Code) and would be placed into the indefinite detention of slavery. After 9/11, the U.S. government did the same with the invention of the unlawful combatant/unprivileged belligerent category and indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay and any other location U.S. officials chose to place “unprivileged belligerents.”

Treason of the Professors and the Media

Ironically, shortly after the New York Times expressed its concern for journalists in early August, the Guardian reported in an article written by William C. Bradford, a recently hired assistant professor in the law department at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The article, entitled “Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column,” was published in the National Security Law Journal of George Mason University Law School.

Bradford argued that the U.S. should be more aggressive in attacking Muslims to include attacks which are war crimes under the law of war. But it was his advocacy that the U.S. military attack other “lawful targets” in its war on terrorism, which include “law school facilities, scholars’ home offices and media outlets where they give interviews” that caught the most attention. These civilian areas were all places where a “causal connection between the content disseminated and Islamist crimes incited” exist, according to Bradford.

Furthermore, Bradford wrote, “Shocking and extreme as this option might seem, [dissenting] scholars, and the law schools that employ them, are – at least in theory – targetable so long as attacks are proportional, distinguish noncombatants from combatants, employ nonprohibited weapons, and contribute to the defeat of Islamism.” In other words, dissenting scholars are unprivileged belligerents and subject to attack, just as journalists are according to the Law of War manual.

Not to defend him but Bradford was articulating the underlying logic of the new Law of War manual’s position that dissenting journalists can be targeted as unprivileged belligerents. This, as stated above, is consistent with oppressive extra-constitutional martial law practices which Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins boasts of as “U.S. domestic common law of war.”

One has to ask: where are the supposed watchdogs of the press when military officers can so easily slide historical falsehoods past them in destroying freedom of the press? Further, Bradford argued that law professors who criticized the failure of the U.S. to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the Law of War represented a “treasonous” fifth column that could be attacked as enemy combatants.

If there is treason being committed in the United States, it must be seen in the acts of those reconstituting the extra-constitutional martial law cases of the Civil War period. That is, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins and associated government attorneys who, in effect, are engaged in an indirect coup d’etat of the U.S. Constitutional order. In fact, Bradford was alleged to have written in favor of a direct military coup d’etat as well.

As it turned out, Bradford had other ethical issues than just his incitement to commit war crimes and target law professors. A combination of factors led to his resigning his position at the Military Academy and this individual crisis would seem to have passed.

The home page of the National Security Law Journal in which his essay had been published carried a repudiation of it by the incoming editorial board. They summarized his article as follows: “Mr. Bradford’s contention that some scholars in legal academia could be considered as constituting a fifth column in the war against terror; his interpretation is that those scholars could be targeted as unlawful combatants.”

But substitute “journalists” for “scholars” and you have the position on journalists of the DOD’s new Law of War manual.

An insightful article in The Atlantic asks “how a scholar pushing these ideas seems not to have raised red flags any earlier.” That’s an excellent question. The article was entitled “The Unusual Opinions of William C. Bradford.” But here’s the point; these opinions are not unusual among some members of the military and right-wing law professors such as Adrian Vermeule of Harvard and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago.

Posner and Vermeule have carved out a niche in American legal discourse in advocating that the U.S. needs to turn to the legal “wisdom” of the German Nazi lawyer, Carl Schmitt. In Terror in the Balance, they suggest that the U.S. may need to adopt censorship for, among other reasons, “antigovernment speech may demoralize soldiers and civilians.” For precedent, they point out that “Martial law during the Civil War permitted the military to try and punish people who criticized the Lincoln administration’s conduct of the war.”

The Attack on ‘Lawfare’

Other prominent advocates of authoritarian legal practices present themselves as protecting against disloyal attorney who practice “lawfare,” which is defined as a form of “asymmetric warfare” that misuses domestic or international law to damage an opponent through legal actions in a courtroom. For instance, Ben Wittes of lawfareblog.com would seem to espouse this type of animosity toward public-interest lawyers who use the courts to defend First Amendment liberties.

A fallacious argument, made by Wittes in a paper which calls for “balancing” liberty and security, is his idiosyncratic belief that “in American constitutional law, for example, free speech does not exist as a general right of the public to communicate as much or as widely as it desires but as an individual right not to have government restrict one’s speech.”

This is contrary to the understanding of the Supreme Court which held in First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, that: “[T]he First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” In other words, the First Amendment guarantees the public’s “right to know.”

Why does this matter? The Constitution’s Framers understood that an informed population was crucial for a Republic. As James Madison put it: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

This understanding of the criticality of the free flow of information for wise democratic decision-making is particularly important for national security where ignorance comes with the highest cost. This understanding formed Clausewitz’s belief in a broad-based civilian decision-making process in matters of national security strategic policy, and not one driven by military leaders with their one-dimensional thinking process.

The Vietnam War is Exhibit A as proof of this. If it had been left to the Generals to decide, the war would have continued “perpetually” even though wiser heads realized from the beginning that it was unwinnable by U.S. terms of maintaining an unpopular government in South Vietnam. The antiwar movement, whatever the motives of some, proved to be more strategically astute than General William Westmoreland who would have continued the war until the U.S. bankrupted itself in the manner that the Soviet Union would years later in Afghanistan. It was the American antiwar movement which gave effect to Clausewitz’s strategy that when a war’s costs exceed its “benefits,” a way must be found to end it.

Curiously, Wittes accurately notes in Law and the Long War that to claim “the President has all the powers of a normal war yet few of its restraints, that the whole world is his battlefield, and that this state of affairs goes on in perpetuity is really akin to claiming a kind of worldwide martial law.” In fact, that’s exactly what the Justice Department argued in Hedges v. Obama without the admission as to martial law.

Dissent as Treason

Since the Vietnam War, the belief that the media and other critics of government policies act as fifth columnists has become commonplace in military-oriented journals and with the American authoritarian-oriented political class, expressed in articles such as William Bradford’s attack on “treasonous professors.”

To the question “how a scholar pushing these ideas” did not raise a red flag, that might best be asked of the National Security Law Journal’s previous editorial board. It is worth noting however that the editors who chose to publish Bradford’s article are not neophytes in national security issues or strangers to the military or government.

As described on the NSLJ website, the Editor-in-Chief from 2014-2015 has broad experience in homeland and national security programs from work at both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security and currently serves (at the time of publication of Bradford’s article) as the Deputy Director for the Office of Preparedness Integration and Coordination at FEMA. A U.S. government official in other words.

The “Articles Selection Editor” is described as “a family physician with thirty years of experience in the foreign affairs and intelligence communities.” Websites online suggest his experience may have been acquired as a CIA employee. The executive editor appears to be a serving Marine Corps officer who attended law school as a military-funded student.

Significantly; Bradford was articulating precepts of the “U.S. common law of war” promoted by Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins because nothing Bradford advocated was inconsistent with William Whiting’s guidance to Union Generals. Except Whiting went even further and advised that judges in the Union states who “impeded” the military in any way by challenging their detentions were even greater “public enemies” than Confederate soldiers were.

This “U.S. common law of war” is a prosecution fabrication created by legal expediency in the absence of legitimate legal precedent for what the United States was doing with prisoners captured globally after 9/11. This legal invention came about when military commission prosecutors failed to prove that the offense of Material Support for Terrorism was an international law of war crime. So prosecutors dreamed up a “domestic common law of war.” This in fact is simply following the pattern of totalitarian states of the Twentieth Century.

Government-Media-Academic-Complex

The logic of Bradford’s argument is the same as that of the Defense Department in declaring that journalists may be deemed “unprivileged belligerents.” As quoted above, George H. Aldrich had observed that in Vietnam, both sides had as their goal “the destruction of the will to continue the struggle.”

Bradford argued that Islamists must overcome Americans’ support for the current war to prevail, and “it is the ‘informational dimension’ which is their main combat effort because it is U.S. political will which must be destroyed for them to win.” But he says Islamists lack skill “to navigate the information battlespace, employ PSYOPs, and beguile Americans into hostile judgments regarding the legitimacy of their cause.”

Therefore, according to Bradford, Islamists have identified “force multipliers with cultural knowledge of, social proximity to, and institutional capacity to attrit American political will. These critical nodes form an interconnected ‘government-media-academic complex’ (‘GMAC’) of public officials, media, and academics who mould mass opinion on legal and security issues . . . .”

Consequently, Bradford argues, within this triumvirate, “it is the wielders of combat power within these nodes — journalists, officials, and law professors — who possess the ideological power to defend or destroy American political will.”

While Bradford reserves special vituperation for his one-time fellow law professors, he states the “most transparent example of this power to shape popular opinion as to the legitimacy of U.S. participation in wars is the media.”

As proof, Bradford explained how this “disloyalty” of the media worked during the Vietnam War. He wrote: “During the Vietnam War, despite an unbroken series of U.S. battlefield victories, the media first surrendered itself over to a foreign enemy for use as a psychological weapon against Americans, not only expressing criticism of U.S. purpose and conduct but adopting an ‘antagonistic attitude toward everything America was and represented’ and ‘spinning’ U.S. military success to convince Americans that they were losing, and should quit, the war. Journalistic alchemists converted victory into defeat simply by pronouncing it.”

Space does not permit showing in how many ways this “stab in the back” myth is false. But this belief in the disloyalty of the media in Bradford’s view remains today. He wrote: “Defeatism, instinctive antipathy to war, and empathy for American adversaries persist within media.”

Targeting Journalists

The right-wing militarist Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), with mostly retired U.S. military officers serving as advisers, has advocated targeting journalists with military attacks. Writing in The Journal of International Security Affairs in 2009, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters wrote:

“Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight, but one which we not only refrain from attacking but are hesitant to annoy: the media . . . . Future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.” (Emphasis in original.)

The rationale for that deranged thinking was first propounded by Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp and other authoritarian-minded officers after the Vietnam War. Sharp explained, our “will” was eroded because “we were subjected to a skillfully waged subversive propaganda campaign, aided and abetted by the media’s bombardment of sensationalism, rumors and half-truths about the Vietnam affair — a campaign that destroyed our national unity.” William C. Bradford apparently adopted and internalized this belief, as have many other military officers.

That “stab in the back” myth was propagated by a number of U.S. military officers as well as President Richard Nixon (as explained here). It was more comfortable to believe that than that the military architects of the war did not understand what they were doing. So they shifted blame onto members of the media who were astute enough to recognize and report on the military’s failure and war crimes, such as My Lai.

But those “critical” journalists, along with critics at home, were only recognizing what smarter Generals such as General Frederick Weyand recognized from the beginning. That is, the war was unwinnable by the U.S. because it was maintaining in power its despotic corrupt ally, the South Vietnamese government, against its own people. Whether or not what came later was worse for the Vietnamese people was unforeseeable by the majority of the people. What was in front of their eyes was the military oppression of American and South Vietnamese forces and secret police.

Information Warfare Today

In 1999, the Rand Corporation published a collection of articles in Strategic Appraisal: The Changing Role of Information in Warfare. The volume was edited by Zalmay Khalilzad, the alleged author of the Defense Department’s 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which was drafted when Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary and Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of Defense – and promulgated a theory of permanent U.S. global dominance.

One chapter of Rand’s Strategic Appraisal was written by Jeremy Shapiro, now a special adviser at the U.S. State Department, according to Wikipedia. Shapiro wrote that the inability to control information flows was widely cited as playing an essential role in the downfall of the communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

He stated that perception management was “the vogue term for psychological operations or propaganda directed at the public.” As he expressed it, many observers worried that potential foes could use techniques of perception management with asymmetric strategies with their effect on public opinion to “destroy the will of the United States to wage war.”

Consequently, “Warfare in this new political environment consists largely of the battle to shape the political context of the war and the meaning of victory.”

Another chapter on Ethics and Information Warfare by John Arquilla makes clear that information warfare must be understood as “a true form of war.” The range of information warfare operations, according to Arquilla, extends “from the battlefield to the enemy home front.” Information warfare is designed “to strike directly at the will and logistical support of an opponent.”

This notion of information warfare, that it can be pursued without a need to defeat an adversary’s armed forces, is an area of particular interest, according to Arquilla. What he means is that it necessitates counter measures when it is seen as directed at the U.S. as now provided for in the new LOW Manual.

Important to note, according to Arquilla, is that there is an inherent blurriness with defining “combatants” and “acts of war.” Equating information warfare to guerrilla warfare in which civilians often engage in the fighting, Arquilla states “in information warfare, almost anyone can engage in the fighting.”

Consequently, the ability to engage in this form of conflict is now in the hands of small groups and individuals, offering up “the prospect of potentially quite large numbers of information warfare-capable combatants emerging, often pursuing their own, as opposed to some state’s policies,” Arquilla wrote.

Therefore, a “concern” for information warfare at the time of the Rand study in 1999 was the problem of maintaining “noncombatant immunity.” That’s because the “civilian-oriented target set is huge and likely to be more vulnerable than the related set of military infrastructures . . . . Since a significant aspect of information warfare is aimed at civilian and civilian-oriented targets, despite its negligible lethality, it nonetheless violates the principle of noncombatant immunity, given that civilian economic or other assets are deliberately targeted.”

What Arquillo is saying is that civilians who are alleged to engage in information warfare, such as professors and journalists, lose their “noncombatant immunity” and can be attacked. The “blurriness” of defining “combatants” and “acts of war” was removed after 9/11 with the invention of the “unlawful combatant” designation, later renamed “unprivileged belligerent” to mimic language in the Geneva Conventions.

Then it was just a matter of adding the similarly invented “U.S. domestic common law of war” with its martial law precedents and a framework has been built for seeing critical journalists and law professors as “unprivileged belligerents,” as Bradford indiscreetly wrote.

Arquilla claims that information warfare operations extend to the “home front” and are designed “to strike directly at the will and logistical support of an opponent.” That is to equate what is deemed information warfare to sabotage of the population’s psychological will to fight a war, and dissidents to saboteurs.

Perpetual War

But this is a perpetual war driven by U.S. operations, according to a chapter written by Stephen T. Hosmer on psychological effects of information warfare. Here, it is stated that “the expanding options for reaching audiences in countries and groups that could become future U.S. adversaries make it important that the United States begin its psychological conditioning in peacetime.” Thus, it is necessary “to begin to soften the fighting will of the potential adversary’s armed forces in the event conflict does occur.”

As information warfare is held to be “true war,” this means that the U.S. is perpetually committing acts of war against those deemed “potential” adversaries. Little wonder that Vladimir Putin sees Russia as under assault by the United States and attempts to counter U.S. information warfare.

This same logic is applied to counter-insurgency. The 2014 COIN Manual, FM 3-24, defines “Information Operations” as information-related capabilities “to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision-making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own.”

Those we “protect ourselves from” can logically be seen as the internal enemy, as William Bradford saw it, such as critical law professors and journalists, just as Augusto Pinochet did in Chile with dissidents.

With the totalitarian logic of information-warfare theorists, internalized now throughout much of the U.S. government counter-terrorism community, it should be apparent to all but the most obtuse why the DOD deems a journalist who writes critically of U.S. government war policy an “unprivileged belligerent,” an enemy, as in the Law of War manual. William C. Bradford obviously absorbed this doctrine but was indiscreet enough to articulate it fully.

It Has Happened Here!

That’s the only conclusion one can draw from reading the transcript of the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit. In that lawsuit, plaintiffs, including journalists and political activists, challenged the authority provided under Sec. 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization for removal out from under the protection of the Constitution of those deemed unprivileged belligerents. That is, civilians suspected of lending any “support” to anyone whom the U.S. government might deem as having something to do with terrorism.

“Support” can be as William Whiting described it in 1862 and as what is seen as “information warfare” by the U.S. military today: a sentiment of hostility to the government “to undermine confidence in its capacity or its integrity, to diminish, demoralize . . . its armies, to break down confidence in those who are intrusted with its military operations in the field.”

Reminiscent of the Sinclair Lewis novel It Can’t Happen Here where those accused of crimes against the government are tried by military judges as in the U.S. Military Commissions, a Justice Department attorney arguing on behalf of the United States epitomized the legal reasoning that one would see in a totalitarian state in arguing why the draconian “Law of War” is a substitute for the Constitution.

The Court asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Torrance if he would agree, “as a principled matter, that the President can’t, in the name of the national security of the United States, just decide to detain whomever he believes it is important to detain or necessary to detain to prevent a terrorist act within the United States?”

Rather than giving a straight affirmative answer to a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, Torrance dissembled, only agreeing that that description would seem “quite broad,” especially if citizens. But he added disingenuously that it was the practice of the government “not to keep people apprehended in the U.S.”

Which is true, it is known that people detained by the U.S. military and CIA have been placed everywhere but in the U.S. so that Constitutional rights could not attach. Under Section 1021, that “inconvenience” to the government would not be necessary.

When asked by the Court if he, the Justice Department attorney, would agree that a different administration could change its mind with respect to whether or not Sec. 1021 would be applied in any way to American citizens, he dissembled again, answering: “Is that possible? Yes, but it is speculative and conjecture and that cannot be the basis for an injury in fact.”

So U.S. citizens or anyone else are left to understand that they have no rights remaining under the Constitution. If a supposed “right” is contingent upon who is President, it is not a right and the U.S. is no longer under the rule of law.

In discussing whether activist and journalist Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a citizen of Iceland, could be subject to U.S. military detention or trial by military commission, Assistant U.S. Attorney Torrance would only disingenuously answer that “her activities as she alleges them, do not implicate this.” Disingenuous because he knew based upon the answer he previously gave that the law of war is arbitrary and its interpretation contingent upon a military commander, whoever that may be, at present or in the future.

What could happen to Ms. Jónsdóttir would be completely out of her control should the U.S. government decide to deem her an “unprivileged belligerent,” regardless of whether her expressive activities changed positively or negatively, or remained the same. Her risk of detention per the Justice Department is entirely at the sufferance of whatever administration may be in place at any given moment.

Any doubt that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, along with Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, is believed by the U.S. Executive Branch to give it the untrammeled power that Article 48 of the Weimar Germany constitution gave to the German President in 1933 was settled by the arguments made by the Justice Department attorney in Hedges v. Obama.

Setting First Amendment Aside

One does not need to speculate that the U.S. government no longer sees First Amendment activities as protected. Government arguments, which were made in the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit, revealed that the Justice Department, speaking for the Executive Branch, considers protection of the Bill of Rights subordinate to the claim of “war powers” by the Executive. One can only be willfully blind to fail to see this.

By the Justice Department’s court arguments and filings, the protections afforded by the U.S. Bill of Rights are no more secure today than they were to Japanese-Americans when Western District military commander General DeWitt decided to remove them from their homes on the West Coast and intern them in what were initially called, “concentration camps.”

The American Bar Association Journal reported in 2014 that Justice Antonin Scalia told students in Hawaii that “the Supreme Court’s Korematsu decision upholding the internment of Japanese Americans was wrong, but it could happen again in war time.” But contrary to Scalia stating that Korematsu had been repudiated, Korematsu has never been overruled.

The court could get a chance to do so, the ABA article stated, in the Hedges v. Obama case “involving the military detention without trial of people accused of aiding terrorism.” But that opportunity has passed.

A U.S. District Court issued a permanent injunction blocking the law’s indefinite detention powers but that ruling was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asked the justices to overturn Sec. 1021, the federal law authorizing such detentions and stated the justices should consider overruling Korematsu. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2014, leaving the Appeals Court’s ruling intact.

The Supreme Court’s decision to not overturn Korematsu allows General DeWitt’s World War II decision to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps to stand as a shining example of what Brig. General Marks Martins proudly holds up to the world as the “U.S. domestic common law of war.”

Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. In the course of that assignment, he researched and reviewed the complete records of military commissions held during the Civil War and stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

September 13, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Missile Defense Agency Spent $10 Billion on 4 Projects that were Cancelled

By Noel Brinkerhoff | AllGov | April 29, 2015

The Department of Defense started, then discarded, four massive missile defense projects, wasting $10 billion on technology that wasn’t capable of protecting the United States from foreign attack.

An investigation by the Los Angeles Times identified four programs developed by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) that did not work as advertised:

The Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX), an enormous floating radar ship, was supposed to be able to detect even tiny incoming objects into U.S. airspace from thousands of miles away. SBX, built by Boeing and Raytheon, was going to guide rocket interceptors to enemy ballistic missiles before they could reach U.S. soil. But after a $2.2 billion investment, MDA realized SBX couldn’t distinguish between missiles and decoys. The technology has been mothballed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

The Airborne Laser was going to allow the U.S. to blast enemy missiles using lasers mounted on converted Boeing 747s. But it turned out the lasers couldn’t be fired from long distance, requiring the planes to fly so close to an enemy country that they would be vulnerable to being shot down. So the MDA shut down the project, which cost $5.3 billion, according to the Times’ David Willman.

The Kinetic Energy Interceptor was a rocket that was supposed to be fired from land or from a ship to intercept enemy missiles during their boost phase. However, the interceptor didn’t fit on ships and didn’t have the necessary range to be fired from land. After six years of development and $1.7 billion of investment, the program ended. “No matter how successful tests might one day have been, the system would have had negligible utility,” a National Academy of Sciences review panel said.

The Multiple Kill Vehicle, a cluster of small interceptors that could take out enemy warheads and decoys, never even got a test flight. It burned through nearly $700 million.

“You can spend an awful lot of money and end up with nothing,” Mike Corbett, a retired Air Force colonel who oversaw the agency’s contracting for weapons systems from 2006 to 2009, told the Times. “MDA spent billions and billions on these programs that didn’t lead anywhere.”

Another retired officer, Air Force Gen. Eugene E. Habiger, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a member of a National Academy panel that reviewed MDA’s missteps, said the agency failed to analyze alternatives or seek independent cost estimates. Or, as he put it: “They are totally off in la-la land.”

To Learn More:

The Pentagon’s $10-Billion Bet Gone Bad (by David Willman, Los Angeles Times )

Another Missile Defense Test, Another Failure (by Matt Bewig, AllGov )

Reagan’s Star Wars Program…More than $200 Billion Later (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

April 29, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

What Happened to $1.3 Billion of Taxpayer Money Sent Directly to U.S. Military Officers in Afghanistan? Pentagon won’t Say

By Steve Straehley | AllGov | April 27, 2015

The Department of Defense (DOD) refuses to detail what it did with $1.3 billion that was supposed to be used on urgent humanitarian and reconstruction projects.

A report (pdf) from Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John Sopko pointed out that $2.26 billion had been put into the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP). That funding is meant to be used primarily for small projects estimated to cost less than $500,000 involving such issues as transportation, electricity and education. This year, most of the money will be used for condolence payments when civilians are killed or injured or property is damaged by U.S. forces and to increase security for communities that happen to be located near active U.S. military bases.

However, according to the SIGAR report, the Defense Department is given “broad authority to spend CERP funds notwithstanding other provisions of law. As a result, projects supported by CERP funds are not bound by procurement laws or the Federal Acquisition Regulation.”

The Army’s official guidance on CERP projects is “CERP is a quick and effective method that provides an immediate, positive impact on the local population while other larger reconstruction projects are still getting off the ground. The keys to project selection are: Execute quickly; Employ many people from the local population; Benefit the local population; Be highly visible.”

But the SIGAR report said “DOD could only provide financial information relating to the disbursement of funds for CERP projects totaling $890 million (40%) of the approximately $2.2 billion in obligated funds at that time.” The other $1.3 billion of the CERP money that has been sent to Afghanistan has been spent on projects classified as “unknown.”

What’s worse is that according to the Pentagon’s response to the report, some of the money went to war-fighting instead of helping Afghan civilians. “Although the report is technically accurate, it did not discuss the Counter Insurgency (COIN) strategies in relationship to CERP. In addition, the 20 users [sic] of CERP funds, it was also used as a tool for COIN. CERP funds were, and continue to be used to build goodwill between the people of Iraq and/or Afghanistan and the United States in an effort to gain their support in fighting the insurgency. In many cases CERP’s main effort was the COIN aspect verse the actual project being procured.”

So, from the part of that statement that makes any sense, it would appear that the money was siphoned off from approved uses and into counter insurgency, which is not among the 20 approved uses for CERP funds.

To Learn More:

Pentagon Can’t Account for $1 Billion in Afghan Reconstruction Aid (by James Rosen, McClatchy )

Department of Defense Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP): Priorities and Spending in Afghanistan for Fiscal Years 2004-2014 (Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction) (pdf)

Commander’s Emergency Response Program (Center for Army Lessons Learned)

After 6 Years, Obama’s Pentagon Suddenly Declares Details of Afghanistan War “Classified” (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

U.S. Wasted $7.6 Billion to Fight Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan…Which is Now at an All-Time High (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

U.S. Wasted $34 Million Pushing Soybeans on Afghanistan (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

Pentagon Leads PR Campaign to Counter Critical Inspector General Reports on Afghanistan (by Noel Brinkerhoff and Danny Biederman, AllGov )

Harsh Inspector General Report Says 0 of 16 Afghan Agencies can be Trusted with U.S. Aid (by Noel Brinkerhoff and Danny Biederman, AllGov )

April 27, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | 1 Comment

Under CISPA, Who Can Get Your Data?

By Rainey Reitman | EFF | March 20, 2013

Under CISPA, companies can collect your information in order to “protect the rights and property” of the company, and then share that information with third parties, including the government, so long as it is for “cybersecurity purposes.” Companies aren’t required to strip out personally identifiable information from the data they give to the government, and the government can then use the information for purposes wholly unrelated to cybersecurity – such as “national security,” a term the bill leaves undefined.

One question we sometimes get is: Under CISPA, which government agencies can receive this data? For example, could the FBI, NSA, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement receive data if CISPA were to pass?

The answer is yes. Any government agency could receive data from companies if this were to pass, meaning identifiable data could be flowing to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the National Security Agency, or even the Food and Drug Administration.

Below is a list of agencies that could get your data under CISPA (Thanks, Wikipedia!). Note that this is just agencies we’ve identified; it’s possible there are even more we haven’t listed here.

Find this offensive and deeply concerning? Email Congress today to oppose CISPA.

Under CISPA, which government agencies can get your data?

Executive Office of the President

Agencies within the Executive Office of the President:

Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
Domestic Policy Council
National Economic Council
National Security Council
Office of Administration
Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National AIDS Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of the President
Office of the First Lady
Office of the First Children
Office of the Vice President
Office of the Second Lady
Office of the Second Children
President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
President’s Intelligence Oversight Board
President’s Intelligence Advisory Board
United States Trade Representative
White House Office
White House Military Office

United States Department of Agriculture

Agencies within the Department of Agriculture:

Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Economic Research Service
Farm Service Agency
Commodity Credit Corporation
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
4-H
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Risk Management Agency
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Rural Business and Cooperative Programs
Office of Rural Development
Research, Education and Economics
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service

United States Department of Commerce

Agencies within the Department of Commerce:

Census Bureau
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Bureau of Industry and Security
Economic Development Administration
Economics and Statistics Administration
Export Enforcement
Import Administration
International Trade Administration
Office of Travel and Tourism Industries
Invest in America
Manufacturing and Services
Marine and Aviation Operations
Market Access and Compliance
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA Commissioned Corps
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic Service
National Weather Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Technical Information Service
Trade Promotion and the U.S. And Foreign Commercial Service

United States Department of Defense

Agencies within the Department of Defense:

Department of the Army
United States Army
Army Intelligence and Security Command
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Navy
United States Navy
Office of Naval Intelligence
U.S. Naval Academy
Marine Corps
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity
Department of the Air Force
United States Air Force
Civil Air Patrol
Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency
Joint Chiefs of Staff
J-2 Intelligence
National Guard Bureau
Natural Disaster and Disaster Help Program
J-2 Intelligence Directorate
Air National Guard
Army National Guard
America Citizen Militia
America Citizen Militia Intelligence
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Defense Information Systems Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Defense Security Service
Defense Technical Information Center
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Missile Defense Agency
National Security Agency
Central Security Service
National Reconnaissance Office
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Pentagon Force Protection Agency
United States Pentagon Police
American Forces Information Service
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office
Department of Defense Education Activity
Department of Defense Dependents Schools
Defense Human Resources Activity
Office of Economic Adjustment
TRICARE Management Activity
Washington Headquarters Services
West Point Military Academy

United States Department of Education

Agencies within the Department of Education:

Federal Student Aid
Institute of Education Sciences
National Center for Education Statistics
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
Education Resources Information Center
National Center for Education Research
National Center for Special Education Research
National Assessment Governing Board
National Assessment of Educational Progress
Office for Civil Rights
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Safe and Healthy Students
Office of Postsecondary Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Office of Special Education Programs
Rehabilitation Services Administration
Special institutions
American Printing House for the Blind
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Gallaudet University
Office of Vocational and Adult Education

United States Department of Energy

List of agencies within the Department of Energy:

Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Laboratories & Technology Centers
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Nuclear Security Administration
Power Marketing Administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration
Southeastern Power Administration
Southwestern Power Administration
Western Area Power Administration

United States Department of Health and Human Services

Agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services:

Administration on Aging
Administration for Children and Families
Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Epidemic Intelligence Service
National Center for Health Statistics
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Reagan-Udall Foundation
Health Resources and Services Administration
Patient Affordable Healthcare Care Act Program {to be implemented fully in 2014}
Independent Payment Advisory Board
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
National Health Intelligence Service
Public Health Service
Federal Occupational Health
Office of the Surgeon General
United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

United States Department of Homeland Security

Agencies

Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA Corps
U.S. Fire Administration
National Flood Insurance Program
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Transportation Security Administration
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
United States Coast Guard (Transfers to Department of Defense during declared war or national emergency)
Coast Guard Intelligence
National Ice Center
United States Ice Patrol
United States Customs and Border Protection
Office of Air and Marine
Office of Border Patrol
U.S. Border Patrol
Border Patrol Intelligence
Office of Field Operations
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
United States Secret Service
Secret Service Intelligence Service

Offices

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Office of Health Affairs
Office of Component Services
Office of International Affairs and Global Health Security
Office of Medical Readiness
Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Office of Operations Coordination
Office of Policy
Homeland Security Advisory Council
Office of International Affairs
Office of Immigration Statistics
Office of Policy Development
Office for State and Local Law Enforcement
Office of Strategic Plans
Private Sector Office

Management

Directorate for Management

National Protection and Programs

National Protection and Programs Directorate
Federal Protective Service
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications
National Communications System
National Cyber Security Division
United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team
Office of Emergency Communications
Office of Infrastructure Protection
Office of Risk Management and Analysis
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)

Science and Technology

Science and Technology Directorate
Environmental Measurements Laboratory

Portfolios

Innovation/Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency
Office of Research
Office of National Laboratories
Office of University Programs
Program Executive Office, Counter Improvised Explosive Device
Office of Transition
Commercialization Office
Long Range Broad Agency Announcement Office
Product Transition Office
Safety Act Office
Technology Transfer Office

Divisions

Border and Maritime Security Division
Chemical and Biological Division
Command, Control and Interoperability Division
Explosives Division
Human Factors Division
Infrastructure/Geophysical Division

Offices and Institutes

Business Operations Division
Executive Secretariat Office
Human Capital Office
Key Security Office
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Planning and Management
Corporate Communications Division
Interagency and First Responders Programs Division
International Cooperative Programs Office
Operations Analysis Division
Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute
Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute
Strategy, Policy and Budget Division
Special Programs Division
Test & Evaluation and Standards Division

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

Agencies

Federal Housing Administration
Federal Housing Finance Agency

Offices

Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (HUD)
Departmental Enforcement Center
Office of Community Planning and Development
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Office of Field Policy and Management
Office of the General Counsel
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Office of Labor Relations
Office of Policy Development and Research
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities

Corporation

Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)

United States Department of the Interior

Agencies:

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (formerly Minerals Management Service)
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (formerly Minerals Management Service)
National Park Service
Office of Insular Affairs
Office of Surface Mining
National Mine Map Repository
United States Geological Survey

United States Department of Justice

Agencies:

Antitrust Division
Asset Forfeiture Program
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Civil Division
Civil Rights Division
Community Oriented Policing Services
Community Relations Service
Criminal Division
Diversion Control Program
Drug Enforcement Administration
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Executive Office for United States Trustees
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Prisons
UNICOR
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
INTERPOL – United States National Central Bureau
Justice Management Division
National Crime Information Center
National Drug Intelligence Center
National Institute of Corrections
National Security Division
Office of the Associate Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
Office of Dispute Resolution
Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
Office of Information Policy
Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Community Capacity Development Office
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
National Institute of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Office for Victims of Crime
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of Legal Policy
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Pardon Attorney
Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties
Office of Professional Responsibility
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking
Office of the Solicitor General
Office of Special Counsel
Office of Tribal Justice
Office on Violence Against Women
Professional Responsibility Advisory Office
Tax Division
United States Attorneys
United States Marshals
United States Parole Commission
United States Trustee Program

United States Department of Labor

Agencies and Bureaus

Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (DOL)
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Job Corps
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Veterans’ Employment and Training Service
Wage and Hour Division
Women’s Bureau

Boards

Administrative Review Board
Benefits Review Board
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Offices

Office of Administrative Law Judges
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of Disability Employment Policy
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Office of Labor-Management Standards
Office of the Solicitor
Office of Worker’s Compensation Program
Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program

United States Department of State

Agencies and Bureaus

National Council for the Traditional Arts

Reporting to the Secretary

Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Bureau of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Legal Adviser

Reporting to the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources

Executive Secretariat
Office of the Chief of Protocol
Office for Civil Rights
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Office of the United States Global AIDS Coordinator
Office of Global Criminal Justice
Policy Planning Staff

Reporting to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance

Reporting to the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

Reporting to the Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs

Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs

Reporting to the Under Secretary for Management

Bureau of Administration
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Office of Overseas Citizens Services
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)
Diplomatic Security Service (DSS)
Office of Foreign Missions (OFM)
Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC)
Bureau of Human Resources
Family Liaison Office
Bureau of Information Resource Management
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations
Bureau of Resource Management
Foreign Service Institute
Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation

Reporting to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs

Bureau of African Affairs
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

Reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
Bureau of International Information Programs
Bureau of Public Affairs
Office of the Historian
Office of Policy, Planning and Resources for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Permanent Diplomatic Missions

United States Mission to the African Union
United States Mission to ASEAN
United States mission to the Arab League
United States mission to the Council of Europe (and to all other European Agencies)
United States Mission to International Organizations in Vienna
United States Mission to the European Union
United States Mission to the International Civil Aviation Organization
United States Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
United States Mission to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
United States Mission to the Organization of American States
United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
United States Mission to the United Nations
United States Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome
United States Mission to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva
United States Observer Mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations Environment Program and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme

United States Department of Transportation

Agencies

Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Federal Aviation Administration
Air Traffic Organization
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Surface Transportation Board

United States Department of the Treasury

Agencies and Bureaus

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Bureau of the Public Debt
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Federal Consulting Group
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Financial Management Service
Internal Revenue Service
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Office of Thrift Supervision
Office of Financial Stability
United States Mint

Offices

Office of Domestic Finance
Office of Economic Policy
Office of International Affairs
Office of Tax Policy
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Treasurer of the United States

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Agencies

National Cemetery Administration
Veterans Benefits Administration
Veterans Health Administration

Independent Agencies and Government Corporations

Administrative Conference of the United States
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Central Intelligence Agency
Commission on Civil Rights
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Corporation for National and Community Service
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Election Assistance Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Election Commission
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Reserve System
United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Trade Commission
General Services Administration
Helen Keller National Center
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Inter-American Foundation
International Broadcasting Bureau
Merit Systems Protection Board
Military Postal Service Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
Office of the Federal Register
National Capital Planning Commission
National Constitution Center
National Council on Disability
National Credit Union Administration
Central Liquidity Facility
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Labor Relations Board
National Mediation Board
National Science Foundation
United States Antarctic Program
National Transportation Safety Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Compliance
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Personnel Management
Federal Executive Institute
Combined Federal Campaign
Office of Special Counsel
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Panama Canal Commission
Peace Corps
Postal Regulatory Commission
Railroad Retirement Board
Securities and Exchange Commission
Securities Investor Protection Corporation
Selective Service System
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
United States Agency for International Development
United States International Trade Commission
United States Postal Service

Inspectors General

Cyber Security Legislation

March 21, 2013 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on Under CISPA, Who Can Get Your Data?