Skip to content

FEMA Moves to Hijack Cell Phones/Radio – Experts: Torture Is Ineffective – Ireland Raids Private Pensions

May 11, 2011

Federal Spychips To Hijack Your Phone

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Comment: The method of totalitarian advancement is obvious, use the excuse of protecting the public to take over more liberties.  To give up liberty to save freedom, is the Orwellian, “double-think” mindset.  Regarding Ireland raiding pension funds, this is only the start.  Though it seems small, the camel’s nose is under the tent and it will almost certainly  come to the US.  The government assumes all our assets belong to it, so take a stand and disallow any confiscation of pension funds, however small at the outset.  Eventually, the money will go to the corrupt bankers who created the loan money from thin air.  Banks and financial institutions will obey every command by the government to confiscate your money and police will protect the banksters and the government, not the people or their property.  Don’t worship the police state.  It is set up for the bankers.

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 11, 2011

The announcement that Americans are set to be bombarded with mandatory government propaganda via their cellphones represents a shocking lurch forward in the Obama administration’s bid to launch a total takeover of all communications as part of a wider move towards controlling the Internet, developing an omnipresent wiretap system, and creating a constant environment of suspicion and distrust by enlisting citizens to spy on each other.

Short of implanting a microchip in people’s heads, the US government has opted for the next best thing, a chip in your cellphone. But what else will these “special chips” be used for?

“Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software,” under the new program which was launched today in New York and is set to be rolled out across all major cities by the end of next year, reports CBS New York.

Cellphone users would not be able to opt out of “presidential messages,” with Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s largest cell phone carriers, already on board.

“For now, the alerts are capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts,” adds the report.

The messages will supersede all other phone traffic and have a unique signal and vibration, meaning that your private conversation could be cut off to make way for government propaganda in a program that resembles Minority Report-style invasiveness on steroids.

What else these “special chips” that will be mandatory in all cellphones will do is not explained, but given the recent scandal where it emerged that cell phone companies were building location databases of where their users had traveled, the sky’s the limit.

Cell phone providers already have the capability to send out text messages to all their subscribers instantly, so why the government needs a “special chip” to be installed will only heighten suspicions that this is a trojan horse for an omnipresent wiretap that will feed every scintilla of information from your phone directly to big brother.

As one respondent to the story put it, “Surely you only need a database of all phone numbers to send out text messages. Am I only person wondering why all handsets need to be fitted with “special chips” in order to receive text messages? The “special chips” can only be being introduced to serve other purposes.”

“This seems very suspicious. Why can people not opt out of the president’s messages?” asked another. “They pay for their phones – they should dictate what it does, not Obama.”

Would the “special chips” also empower Obama to shut down all cell phone traffic on a whim in a time of declared “national emergency”?

Obama already has the power to override all radio and television networks under the recently expanded Emergency Alert System, which allows FEMA to break in on live broadcasts to send out alerts.

His administration is also pushing cybersecurity legislation that would hand Obama a figurative kill switch for the Internet. The term “kill switch” is an oversimplification, what the agenda actually revolves around is the ability to impose Chinese-style censorship over the world wide web and develop an ID system that would force users to have their access controlled by a state-run licensing procedure.

The government-mandated chips would also help achieve the Department of Transportation’s aim of blocking all cellphone use in cars. The chip would allow authorities to prevent use of the phone by measuring the speed you are traveling via GPS technology and shutting down the handset.

This trifecta of broadcast media, Internet, and cellphone traffic represents a total takeover of the entire spectrum of communications in the United States by the Obama administration.

Aside from the terror fearmongering, the system is also wide open for abuse in more prosaic terms, with some fearing that the messages could include PR talking points and political electioneering. Indeed, the image that accompanies a USA Today piece about the story is of a cellphone displaying an infomercial about Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The plan to harass cell phone users with specious terror alerts is part of a larger agenda of fear-based social conditioning by the government. As we noted last month, the Department of Homeland Security announced a new system to replace the old color-coded one. Now so-called terror threats that inevitably turn out to be either false alarms or politically motivated scams will be posted on Facebook and Twitter pages in addition to broadcast over television, radio and cell phones.

As we have exhaustively documented, the move has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping Americans safe from terrorism. More Americans are killed every year by bumble bees or peanut allergies than they are by terrorists.

“Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts,” writes Ohio University’s John Mueller in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity.

The real agenda behind the program manifests itself in numerous ways. On the one hand, this is a further intensification of the Big Sis “see something say something” campaign, it’s designed to condition Americans that terrorists are lurking around every corner and that they must spy on their community to prevent attacks, when in reality every major terror plot that has been uncovered in the United States was either staged or provocateured by the federal government itself.

This is also about capitalizing on the dubious Bin Laden raid to return Americans to a state of post-9/11 intellectual castration, corralling subservience to a system that utilizes fear to control the population and eviscerate constitutional rights.

With the compliant and castrated media increasingly distrusted, Americans are either moving to alternative news sources or tuning out altogether. This has necessitated the government to launch a wide spectrum takeover of all communications in its bid to keep the population under the firm control of state-issued propaganda.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

We are now just a few steps away from having literal telescreens installed in our homes that beam directly into our brains the latest government fables about who we’re bombing now, what level chocolate rations are this month, as well as Michelle Obama’s mandatory exercise program.

Winston Smith’s world of 1984 has come home to roost.

Alex Jones has been warning about the federal government’s total spectrum domination media takeover for 15 years. Watch the video below which was filmed back in February.

————————————————————————————————

Interrogation Experts From Every Branch of the Military and Intelligence Agree: Torture DOESN’T Produce Useful Information

Washington’s Blog
May 11, 2011

Virtually all of the top interrogation experts – both conservatives and liberals (except for those trying to escape war crimes prosecution) – say that torture doesn’t work:

  • Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:

    “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

  • The C.I.A.’s 1963 interrogation manual stated:

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex ‘admissions’ that take still longer to disprove.

  • According to the Washington Post, the CIA’s top spy – Michael Sulick, head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service – said that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration. “I don’t think we’ve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint.”
  • A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks (Milton Bearden) says (as quoted by senior CIA agent and Presidential briefer Ray McGovern):

    It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.

    This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.

  • A former high-level CIA officer (Philip Giraldi) states:

Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.

  • Another former high-level CIA official (Bob Baer) says:

    And torture — I just don’t think it really works … you don’t get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you.

  • Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, says:

    “I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear.”

  • A retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002 (Glenn L. Carle) says:

    [Coercive techniques] didn’t provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information…Everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.”

  • A former top Air Force interrogator who led the team that tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, and wrote a book called How to Break a Terrorist writes:

As the senior interrogator in Iraq for a task force charged with hunting down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader and mass murderer, I listened time and time again to captured foreign fighters cite the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as their main reason for coming to Iraq to fight. Consider that 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are these foreign fighters and you can easily conclude that we have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives because of our policy of torture and abuse. But that’s only the past.
Somewhere in the world there are other young Muslims who have joined Al Qaida because we tortured and abused prisoners. These men will certainly carry out future attacks against Americans, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or possibly even here. And that’s not to mention numerous other Muslims who support Al Qaida, either financially or in other ways, because they are outraged that the United States tortured and abused Muslim prisoners.

In addition, torture and abuse has made us less safe because detainees are less likely to cooperate during interrogations if they don’t trust us. I know from having conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, that when a captured Al Qaida member sees us live up to our stated principles they are more willing to negotiate and cooperate with us. When we torture or abuse them, it hardens their resolve and reaffirms why they picked up arms.

He also says:

[Torture is] extremely ineffective, and it’s counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish.

When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve … The information that you get is unreliable. … And even if you do get reliable information, you’re able to stop a terrorist attack, al Qaeda’s then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members.

And he repeats:

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

He said last week:

They don’t want to talk about the long term consequences that cost the lives of Americans…. The way the U.S. treated its prisoners “was al-Qaeda’s number-one recruiting tool and brought in thousands of foreign fighters who killed American soldiers.

  • The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn’t work
  • Another FBI interrogator of 9/11 suspects said:

I was in the middle of this, and it’s not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective

  • The FBI warned military interrogators in 2003 that enhanced interrogation techniques are “of questionable effectiveness” and cited a “lack of evidence of [enhanced techniques’] success.
  • The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn’t work, stating:

    The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.

  • General Petraeus says that torture is unnecessary, hurts our national security and violates our American values
  • Retired 4-star General Barry McCaffrey – who Schwarzkopf called he hero of Desert Storm – agrees
  • Former Navy Judge Advocate General Admiral John Hutson says:

    Fundamentally, those kinds of techniques are ineffective. If the goal is to gain actionable intelligence, and it is, and if that’s important, and it is, then we have to use the techniques that are most effective. Torture is the technique of choice of the lazy, stupid and pseudo-tough.

    He also says:

    Another objection is that torture doesn’t work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners.

  • Army Colonel Stuart Herrington – a military intelligence specialist who interrogated generals under the command of Saddam Hussein and evaluated US detention operations at Guantánamo – notes that the process of obtaining information is hampered, not helped, by practices such as “slapping someone in the face and stripping them naked”.Herrington and other former US military interrogators say:

    We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.

  • Major General Thomas Romig, former Army JAG, said:

    If you torture somebody, they’ll tell you anything. I don’t know anybody that is good at interrogation, has done it a lot, that will say that that’s an effective means of getting information. … So I don’t think it’s effective.

  • The head of all U.S. intelligence said:

    The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world … The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

  • Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool.
  • The first head of the Department of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – says we were wrong to torture.The former British intelligence chairman says that waterboarding didn’t stop terror plots.
  • A spokesman for the National Security Council (Tommy Vietor) says:

    The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003.

In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts…Here, they say, far from exposing a deadly plot, all torture did was lead to more torture of his supposed accomplices while also providing some misleading “information” that boosted the administration’s argument for invading Iraq.

  • Neuroscientists have found that torture physically and chemically interferes with the prisoner’s ability to tell the truth
  • An Army psychologist – Major Paul Burney, Army’s Behavior Science Consulting Team psychologist – said (page 78 & 83):

It was stressed to me time and time again that psychological investigations have proven that harsh interrogations do not work. At best it will get you information that a prisoner thinks you want to hear to make the interrogation stop, but that information is strongly likely to be false.

***

Interrogation techniques that rely on physical or adverse consequences are likely to garner inaccurate information and create an increased level of resistance…There is no evidence that the level of fear or discomfort evoked by a given technique has any consistent correlation to the volume or quality of information obtained.

  • An expert on resisting torture – Terrence Russell, JPRA’s manager for research and development and a SERE specialist – said (page 209):

History has shown us that physical pressures are not effective for compelling an individual to give information or to do something’ and are not effective for gaining accurate, actionable intelligence.

And – according to the experts – torture is unnecessary even to prevent “ticking time bombs” from exploding (see this, this and this). Indeed, a top expert says that torture would fail in a real ‘ticking time-bomb’ situation

Indeed, it has been known for hundreds of years that torture doesn’t work:

  • As a former CIA analyst notes:

During the Inquisition there were many confessed witches, and many others were named by those tortured as other witches. Unsurprisingly, when these new claimed witches were tortured, they also confessed. Confirmation of some statement made under torture, when that confirmation is extracted by another case of torture, is invalid information and cannot be trusted.

  • The head of Britain’s wartime interrogation center in London said:

“Violence is taboo. Not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information.”

  • The national security adviser to Vice President George H.W. Bush (Donald P. Gregg) wrote:

During wartime service with the CIA in Vietnam from 1970 to 1972, I was in charge of intelligence operations in the 10 provinces surrounding Saigon. One of my tasks was to prevent rocket attacks on Saigon’s port.Keeping Saigon safe required human intelligence, most often from captured prisoners. I had a running debate about how North Vietnamese prisoners should be treated with the South Vietnamese colonel who conducted interrogations. This colonel routinely tortured prisoners, producing a flood of information, much of it totally false. I argued for better treatment and pressed for key prisoners to be turned over to the CIA, where humane interrogation methods were the rule – and more accurate intelligence was the result.

The colonel finally relented and turned over a battered prisoner to me, saying, “This man knows a lot, but he will not talk to me.”

We treated the prisoner’s wounds, reunited him with his family, and allowed him to make his first visit to Saigon. Surprised by the city’s affluence, he said he would tell us anything we asked. The result was a flood of actionable intelligence that allowed us to disrupt planned operations, including rocket attacks against Saigon.

Admittedly, it would be hard to make a story from nearly 40 years ago into a definitive case study. But there is a useful reminder here. The key to successful interrogation is for the interrogator – even as he controls the situation – to recognize a prisoner’s humanity, to understand his culture, background and language. Torture makes this impossible.

There’s a sad twist here. Cheney forgets that the Bush administration followed this approach with some success. A high-value prisoner subjected to patient interrogation by an Arabic-speaking FBI agent yielded highly useful information, including the final word on Iraq’s weapons programs.

His name was Saddam Hussein.

  • Top interrogators got information from a high-level Al Qaeda suspects through building rapport, even if they hated the person they were interrogating by treating them as human

Postscript: Even if – despite the above – you still believe that torture produces helpful information, you should note that the U.S. government used Communist torture techniques specifically designed to produce FALSE Confessions.

———————————————————————————————-

Irish Bombshell: Government Raids PRIVATE Pensions To Pay For Spending

Joe Weisenthal and Gregory White | May 10, 2011, 12:29 PM | 137,883 | comment 18
Enda Kenny

Enda Kenny

Image: thejournal.ie

The Irish government plans to institute a tax on private pensions to drive jobs growth, according to its jobs program strategy, delivered today.Without the ability sell debt due to soaring interest rates, and with severe spending rules in place due to its EU-IMF bailout, Ireland has few ways of spending to stimulate the economy. Today’s jobs program includes specific tax increases, including the tax on pensions, aimed at keeping government jobs spending from adding to the national debt.

The tax on private pensions will be 0.6%, and last for four years, according to the report.

From the jobs initiative release:

The various tax reduction and additional expenditure measures which I am announcing today will be funded by way of a temporary levy on funded pension schemes and personal pension plans. I propose that the levy will apply at a rate of 0.6% to the capital value of assets under management in pension funds established in the State.

It will apply for a period of 4 years commencing this year and is intended to raise about €470 million in each of those years. The levy will not apply to pension funds established here and providing services and benefits solely to non-resident employers and members. Further details regarding the proposed application of the levy are set out in the Summary of Initiative Measures.

Ireland’s ability to levy further taxes on other parts of the economy is restricted because its economic growth has been inhibited in the wake of a financial crisis that crippled its banking sector and decimated its public finances.

Unwilling to budge on the country’s low corporate tax rate, Enda Kenny’s Irish government has chosen to target pensioners for funds to grow the economy. Whether it turns out to be an example to other countries seeking alternative ways to raise revenues with aging populations is yet unknown.

SEE ALSO: The next countries that could raid their pensions >

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/irish-bombshell-government-raids-private-pensions-to-pay-for-jobs-program-2011-5#ixzz1M3ZN8CVu

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: