Government ‘Net Grab Is Not The Path To Better Security

Government ‘Net Grab Is Not The Path To Better Security

From My Cold, Dead Hands

By Michael Tanji | August 29, 2009

It was recently reported that in the Senate there is a bill, that if signed into law, would give the government control over Internet service providers and commercial computer systems during national emergencies. While I’m sure everyone’s heart is in the right place, this is one idea I hope gets sent to the bit bucket.

Normally in such power grabs there is at least some semblance of high ground upon which the claimant stands, so let’s looks at the government’s foundation:

  • The government has national and service-level cyber commands, a national cyber security center, a JTF-GNO, and a Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative . . . but it can’t get a passing grade in security.
  • To oversee governmental efforts in the cyber security arena a “czar” position has been created, but the job has been open and gone begging for months. The usual suspects for such a job have all demurred because it’s a job with a lot of responsibility but no authority. Just the sort of situation one should NOT be in if a cyber security emergency were declared.
  • The government doesn’t run things that don’t lend themselves to the bureaucratic approach well. I won’t pick on any specific agency or governmental function, but writ large, when is the last time you had a fast, efficient, effective time with any government agency? The Internet is pretty much the exact opposite of a government bureaucracy, but they would presume to assume even temporary control without adverse results.

On a more basic level however, we don’t have any idea of what constitutes a threat sufficient to trigger an emergency declaration. If, as a wide range of officials have noted, Internet-connected systems are being attacked thousands of times a day (or hour, depending on who you listen to), shouldn’t an emergency have been declared years ago? If, in a color-coded threat-matrix sort of fashion, ‘Red/Severe’ is the new ‘Yellow/Elevated,’ when does the state of emergency end?

The Internet isn’t a right, but it is major part of our lives from a personal, commercial, and national security perspective. The government is right to want to keep us safe (and its powers during crisis make this bill look positively tame), but government-as-cyber-security-Shogun doesn’t improve security or our collective response to threats. Commercial networks are attacked constantly and major security breaches hit the news every few months. These entities know how to mitigate the effects of such attacks and recover to full operational capability because not doing so means going out of business. The government doesn’t have a problem causing a self-inflicted denial-of-service on itself because the bureaucracy drives on with or without the Internet. That’s not the sort of mindset you want when the digital balloon goes up.

If the government is truly serious about improving cyber security (and get off the ten-year cycle of caring/not-caring), then it needs to:

  • Set standards for cyber security. NIST is already doing a fine job in that area and they could probably stand additional resources to keep up the good work.
  • Pass laws that require that online entities of national import follow the aforementioned standards. It should rigorously enforce those laws and prosecute those who intentionally endanger systems of national import, just as they would anyone who compromised national security in a physical manner (something that isn’t done with anywhere near the intensity as it should).
  • Enable the ability of commercial network owners to share security information with each other and the government without fear of penalty or backlash from an economic perspective. No one shares because no one wants to deal with negative publicity or a lawsuit. There is a way to share meaningful information w/o worrying about privacy, but after a decade+ even I get tired of talking to brick walls.
  • Encourage the development and promulgation of network services at low-levels. Just as communities and even individuals can generate their own electrical power and sell the excess back to the grid, so too should smaller entities be able to provide their own network connectivity and support network traffic other than their own during a crisis. Such a move adds complexity to the system (making it harder for an adversary to understand and thus fully nullify) and increases resilience regardless of the nature of a crisis.

The way to deal with a cyber security emergency on a national level is not consolidation, but distribution. That’s kind of the reason the ‘Net was invented in the first place: to make sure if one node in a network was taken out, information could flow to its intended destination regardless. Centralized management provides the illusion of control, but it doesn’t make things more secure; it just makes things more brittle. When such systems do break – and they will – the damage will be more severe and it will take longer to recover.

I don’t think anyone, regardless of their party, wants that.

Advertisements

Cheney defends torture policy and CIA torturers

Cheney defends torture policy and CIA torturers

By Patrick Martin

31 August 2009

In an interview broadcast Sunday, former vice president Dick Cheney defended the brutal interrogations carried out at CIA secret prisons under the direction of the Bush administration and denounced the proposed investigation of a handful of CIA agents for some of the most flagrant acts of torture.

The interview itself was a demonstration of journalistic sycophancy, as Fox News interviewer Chris Wallace avoided using the word “torture” at any point in his questioning of Cheney. The 25-minute discussion focused largely on last week’s release of a heavily censored report by the CIA inspector general, drafted in 2004, which detailed acts that clearly violate the International Convention Against Torture, ratified by the US government a quarter-century ago.

Besides waterboarding, which was illegal under US law even before the international ban, the documented acts of torture include threats of death and mutilation, reinforced by firearms and an electric drill, mock executions, threats to kill or sexually assault female relatives and children, and numerous forms of physical abuse—beating, slapping, trussing prisoners in agonizing positions, and prolonged exposure to the cold. Many of the worst methods employed against prisoners, leading to an undisclosed number of deaths, were blacked out in the documents released last week.

Cheney defended all these methods, which he invariably described, without any challenge from Wallace, as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or EIT. He repeatedly praised the value of EIT, declaring it essential to the national security policies of the US government.

Under other circumstances, the interview on Fox News would be Exhibit A in a war crimes trial against the former vice president, as Cheney admitted sharing responsibility for the torture regime established in the CIA prisons. He declared he was “proud of” the torture of such prisoners as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged organizer of the 9/11 attacks, who was waterboarded 183 times. “I knew about the waterboarding,” he said. “Not specifically in any one particular case, but as a general policy that we had approved.”

Cheney even declared, in one particularly chilling remark, that he fully supported those torturers who went beyond their instructions and engaged in interrogation methods that even the Bush White House had refused to pronounce legal. The exchange went as follows, as Cheney summed up his attitude to the CIA interrogations:

CHENEY: It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.

WALLACE: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it?

CHENEY: I am.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday the appointment of a special counsel for the Department of Justice to probe only those cases where the CIA agents went beyond the Bush administration torture guidelines. His action dovetails with the declaration made by President Obama in April that intelligence agents who conducted interrogations within the guidelines should not face investigation or prosecution.

This probe is a whitewash on at least two levels. Agents who conducted waterboarding and other torture methods approved by Bush and Cheney will go scot free. More importantly, the top policymakers who ordered the torture, as well as the Justice Department lawyers who drafted the guidelines, will not face any criminal sanctions.

Even the extremely limited probe initiated by Holder has touched off ferocious opposition within the military-intelligence apparatus as well as from most Republican and many Democratic politicians. Cheney is only the most open and most vociferous defender of the torturers.

He repeated at least five times in the course of the Fox interview that President Obama had promised that no agents would be prosecuted and that Holder’s decision amounted to Obama reneging on that promise.

Obama’s initial declaration was the product of a ferocious campaign by the intelligence apparatus and former Bush administration officials who portrayed any prosecution of torturers as an invitation for further terrorist attacks on the American people. Cheney took the extraordinary step of making a public speech before a Washington think tank, denouncing the new administration’s policies on Guantanamo and interrogation, barely three months after Obama took office.

While Holder’s investigation is only a token gesture, Cheney & Co. are clearly concerned that once begun, the special counsel’s probe could go beyond the narrow limits set by the attorney general.

Wallace acknowledged this concern in the interview, asking Cheney, “Do you think it will become an investigation into the Bush lawyers who authorized the activity, into the top policymakers who were involved in the… enhanced interrogation program?”

Cheney replied, “I just think it’s an outrageous political act that will do great damage long-term to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say.”

Both Democratic and Republican senators discussed the torture issue on the Sunday television talk shows, with most criticizing Holder for authorizing a preliminary investigation of certain CIA torturers. Democrat Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, voiced opposition to Holder’s decision. “I think the timing of this is not very good. The intelligence committee has under way now a total look at the interrogation and detention techniques used for all of the high-value detainees,” she said on the CBS program “Face the Nation.” She added, “I wish the attorney general had waited.”

Republican Senator John McCain claimed to oppose waterboarding and other torture methods, but said that he opposed even Holder’s restricted investigation as a threat to the “morale and effectiveness” of the CIA. The main problem with CIA torture, as far as official Washington is concerned, is that it has become public and “harmed our image in the world,” as McCain put it in his remarks Sunday.

Most congressional Republicans have adopted a posture of intransigent defense of the torturers, echoing Cheney. Typical was Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who called the appointment of a special prosecutor a “witch-hunt targeting the terror fighters who have kept us safe since 9/11.”

The former vice president spent much of his Fox News interview reiterating this claim—that the use of torture against CIA prisoners was critical in defending the American people from further terrorist attacks after 9/11.

“Those interrogations were involved in the arrest of nearly all the Al Qaeda members that we were able to bring to justice,” Cheney claimed, “I think they were directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States.”

He repeated later, “I think the evidence is overwhelming that the EITs were crucial in getting them to cooperate, and that the information they provided did in fact save thousands of lives and let us defeat all further attacks against the United States. The thing I keep coming back to time and time again, Chris, is the fact that we’ve gone for eight years without another attack. Now, how do you explain that?”

Wallace had no response, but there is an obvious one: No balance sheet of the “anti-terror” methods can be drawn up without investigating the role of the US government in the 9/11 attacks themselves. Despite the cover-up by the official 9/11 Commission, the available evidence indicates that US intelligence agencies had many of the airplane hijackers, including operational leader Mohammed Atta, under surveillance in 2001.

There is every reason to believe that the suicide hijackings were permitted to go forward in order to provide the pretext required to justify a massive US military intervention into Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, two of the world’s largest sources of oil and gas.

Under that interpretation, the lack of any follow-up terrorist attacks after 9/11 is not due to any special security measures undertaken by the Bush administration, as Cheney claims, but rather to the fact that after 9/11, the US government had no further need of terrorist attacks at home to provide a suitable pretext for war.

Pakistani Press Afraid to Criticize Saudi Arabia or United States

[The obedient dog never questions its masters.

Why would Pakistan’s leaders tease the citizens of Pakistan with false hopes, like a pipeline deal with the Zionists’ mortal enemy, Iran, or an offensive to eliminate the militants from Waziristan for good, when they already know that they have no real intention of doing what they say?  The IP pipeline, like the dream of a truly “democratic” Pakistan, are mere pipe dreams, the new opiate of the masses.]

Pakistan, Iran hold talks on gas pipeline project today

By Khalid Mustafa

ISLAMABAD: Amid stiff opposition to the IP project from the most influential world capitals — one in the West and other in the Middle East, Pakistan and Iran will today (Monday) embark upon the most crucial technical level talks on conditions precedent (CPs), which are prerequisites before making the gas sales purchase agreement effective.

Russia Eliminates Terror Organizer of International Militant Network–a.k.a.”al Qaida”

Russia says kills al Qaeda agent in North Caucasus

MOSCOW: Russian security forces said on Monday they had killed an al Qaeda agent and a second rebel fighter in its troubled North Caucasus region of Dagestan.

Russian officials say cash from foreign-based radical organisations is funding the recent surge of violence in Dagestan and the other two North Caucasus regions of Chechnya and Ingushetia in which dozens of people have died.

“A representative of an international terrorist organization in the North Caucasus tasked to oversee terrorist acts in Dagestan was neutralized during a combat operation,” a security officer told local television news channel.

“He is an Algerian national widely known in undergroundgangs as ‘Doctor Muhammed”,” said the official.

Muhammed and a second rebel fighter were killed when police stormed a house in Dagestan’s Khasavyurt district bordering Chechnya on Sunday night, Russian news agencies reported.

Sen. Feingold Calls for Timetable for Afghanistan Withdrawal

The Road Home From Afghanistan

Why a flexible timetable to withdraw U.S. troops will best advance our national security interests.

By RUSS FEINGOLD

After nearly eight long years, we seem to be no closer to the end of the war in Afghanistan. In fact, given the current buildup of U.S. troops and the possibility that even more may be deploying soon, many Americans, and many Afghans, wonder what we hope to achieve—and when our service members will start to come home.

We went into Afghanistan with a clear mission: to destroy those who helped to perpetrate the horrific 9/11 attacks. I voted to authorize sending our forces there because it was vital to our national security, and I strongly criticized the previous administration for shortchanging that mission in favor of a misguided war in Iraq.

President Barack Obama is rightly focusing on this critical part of the world. But I cannot support an open-ended commitment to an escalating war in Afghanistan when the al Qaeda operatives we sought have largely been captured or killed or crossed the border to Pakistan.

Ending al Qaeda’s safe haven in Pakistan is a top national security priority. Yet our operations in Afghanistan will not do so, and they could actually contribute to further destabilization of Pakistan. Meanwhile, we’ve become embroiled in a nation-building experiment that may distract us from combating al Qaeda and its affiliates, not just in Pakistan, but in Yemen, the Horn of Africa and other terrorist sanctuaries.

We need to start discussing a flexible timetable to bring our brave troops out of Afghanistan. Proposing a timetable doesn’t mean giving up our ability to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Far from it: We should continue a more focused military mission that includes targeted strikes on Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, and we should step up our long-term civilian efforts to deal with the corruption in the Afghan government that has helped the Taliban to thrive. But we must recognize that our troop presence contributes to resentment in some quarters and hinders our ability to achieve our broader national security goals.

Some may argue that if we leave now, the Taliban will expand its control over parts of Afghanistan and provide a wider safe haven for al Qaeda. But dedicating a disproportionate amount of our resources to the military occupation of one country is not the most effective way to combat the terrorist threat we face. Even if we invest billions more dollars annually for the next 10 years and sacrifice hundreds more American lives, we are unlikely to get a credible government capable of governing all Afghan territory.

Instead, we should seek to deny al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan in the long term with a civilian-led strategy discouraging any support for the Taliban by Pakistani security forces, and offer assistance to improve Afghanistan’s economy while fighting corruption in its government. This should be coupled with targeted military operations and a diplomatic strategy that incorporates all the countries in the region. We will never relent in our pursuit of al Qaeda, nor will we “walk away” from Afghanistan. But our massive military presence there is driving our enemies together and may well be counterproductive.

There is a very real possibility that our military presence in Afghanistan will drive militant extremists south and east into Pakistan, al Qaeda’s primary sanctuary. Pakistan is a nuclear power beset by poverty, sectarian conflict, ineffectual government, instability and an inconsistent record of fighting militancy. It is a witch’s brew of threats to our national security that we cannot afford to further destabilize. Yet we may unwittingly do just that. Especially before Pakistan’s government has demonstrated a firm commitment to denying sanctuary to Taliban leadership it has long harbored, further destabilization could undermine our own security.

I’m not alone in being troubled by the prospect of destabilizing Pakistan. During hearings in May at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, whether our troop increases might worsen instability in Pakistan. Adm. Mullen candidly said he shared that concern.

Mr. Holbrooke went even further. “You’re absolutely correct,” he said, “that an additional amount of American troops, and particularly if they’re successful in Helmand and Kandahar, could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability.”

There were even more candid answers to questions about the length of the mission in Afghanistan and the metrics we should use to measure its success. Mr. Holbrooke was asked at the Center for American Progress on Aug. 13 how we will know we have succeeded in Afghanistan. “We’ll know it when we see it,” he replied. On the same day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a similar answer at a Pentagon briefing when asked how long U.S. forces would be fighting in Afghanistan, likening it to a mystery with too many variables to predict. But we must have much more concrete measures, and a much clearer strategy, when we are committing so many American lives and dollars to this cause.

We also ignore the lessons of history by pursuing a drawn-out military mission in Afghanistan. The experiences of the Soviets and the British make it painfully clear just how elusive a military victory in Afghanistan can be. That alone should give us reason to rethink an open-ended military presence in Afghanistan.

In light of their country’s history with great powers, it should come as no surprise that Afghans are increasingly skeptical of our military presence. A 2007 poll (conducted by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV) showed most Afghans in the Southwest no longer support the presence of foreign troops, and a poll this year (conducted ABC News and the BBC) found that nationwide a plurality of Afghans want troop levels reduced, not increased.

Announcing a flexible timetable for when our massive military presence will end would be one of the best things we could do to advance our national security interests in Afghanistan. By doing so, we would undercut the misperception of the U.S. as an occupying force that has propped up a weak, corrupt and unpopular government, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.

While we have many important goals in Afghanistan, we must be realistic about our limited ability to quickly change the fundamental political realities on the ground. The recent presidential election shows there will be no easy solution to the sectarianism, corruption and warlordism that plague that country. We should seriously question putting so many American lives at risk to expand, through military force, the reach of a government that has failed to win the support of its own people.

Instead of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, we should start talking about a flexible timetable to begin drawing those levels down. It is time to ask the hard questions—and accept the candid answers—about how our military presence in Afghanistan may be undermining our national security.

Mr. Feingold is a Democratic senator from Wisconsin.

Kidnapped Victims of Organized Mind Control Networks

JAYCEE AND DUTROUX

Michaela Garecht

In 1978, in the USA, Phillip Garrido began a 50-year sentence for kidnap and rape.

Garrido was out of jail within 11 years.

There is a suspicion that Garrido has friends in high places.

In 1989, in Belgium, Marc Dutroux was sentenced to 13 years in jail for kidnapping and raping young girls.

He was out within 3 years.

Reportedly, Dutroux was working for a group which included top judges, top police, top members of the military, top diplomats, top politicians and royalty. (Child Abuse, Iran-Contra, BCCI, Bush, Dutroux, Franklin )

In 1988, 9-year-old Michaela Garecht was kidnapped about an hour’s drive from Garrido’s house.

In 1991, Garrido kidnapped 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard, from a bus stop.

In 1998, the body of 15-year-old Lisa Norrell was found a few miles from Garrido’s house.

Lisa’s body was found in an industrial park, close to where Garrido used to work and close to where the bodies of several other women were found.

In 2006, a neighbour told the police of Garrido’s suspiciopus behaviour. The police did not investigate Garrido’s house.


In 1996, police re-arrested Marc Dutroux for kidnapping, child pornography, murder, and child prostitution.

Dutroux was convicted in 2004 of raping and murdering a string of young girls.

Belgian police were told of the whereabouts of one of the victims of alleged child murderer and pedophile Marc Dutroux one year before she was found dead, a court in Belgium heard.

“Throughout the Dutroux investigation and trial there have been allegations and rumours of police incompetence at best, collusion at worst.” – Police told where Dutroux victim was long before she was found dead: witness

Marc Dutroux, the Belgian paedophile, claimed … that police officers helped him to abduct two young women whose bodies were later discovered buried in his garden.

“Testifying for the first time at his trial, Dutroux said that he abducted An Marchal, 17, and Eefje Lambrecks, 19, with the help of a heroin-addicted friend, who is also on trial, and two other men. ‘I later found out they were members of the police force,’ he told the court, without identifying them.” – Dutroux claims police helped in teens’ kidnap – Times Online

Marc Dutroux’s lawyer, Xavier Magnee, said Dutroux, was part of a criminal network supplying the sex trade.

Magnee said Dutroux was a “small fish” working for a network with links to the police.

Magnee pointed out the failure of the police to process all the forensic samples discovered in a basement cellar in which Dutroux kept four of his captives.

Magnee said that some 6,000 hair samples found in the basement cellar where some of the victims were held had led to the discovery of 25 “unknown” DNA profiles.

“There were people in that cellar that are not now accused,” said Magnee. Dutroux says he abducted girls with police help – Europe, News …

Marc Dutroux insisted that he was not a “lone predator” but part of a wider paedophile ring.

Dutroux described himself as a victim, a “puppet in a show trial” who had to be put away to “hide the truth” and serve the interests of “organised corruption”.

Dutroux said only 10% of the case had been examined.

He asked why independent-minded policemen had been removed from the investigating team. – Dutroux insists he was part of paedophile ring World news The …

Bonacci in front of the ranch where, reportedly, Johnny Gosch, and other boys were held captive.

It has been widely reported that the US military tortures American children as part of mind-control experiments.

1. Paul A. Bonacci said that, as a child, he was kidnapped, tortured and subjected to sex abuse and mind control.

In 1999, in a court in Omaha, he won $1,000,000 in damages. (Mind Control Victim Awarded $1 Million)

Bonacci in his testimony referred to the involvement of top members of the US military and top politicians in child abuse.

The Washington Times reported that Paul Bonacci had access to the White House living quarters.

Johnny Gosch is reportedly one of those tortured by the US military. www.cremationofcare.com/the_nwo_teaoc.htm / Mind Control Victim Awarded $1 Million

Bonacci testified on videotape (5-14-1990) for Nebraska State Police investigator Gary Caradori:

“Bonacci said that while on a trip to Sacramento, he was forced at gun-point to commit homosexual acts on another boy before he watched other men do the same – after which the boy was shot in the head.” (Child sex rings linked to top Americans? Part 2)

Lt Col Aquino

Col. Michael Aquino is one of those frequently mentioned in cases relating to child abuse and mind-control. (Michael Aquino, child sex abuse and the United States.)

Kurt Lewin

2. In 1921, in London, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations was set up to study the ‘breaking point’ of humans. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

In 1932, Kurt Lewin, a German-Jewish psychologist, became the director of the Tavistock Institute.

He studied the use of terror to achieve mind control. (Cached )

In Germany, similar research was being carried out by the Germans.

There were many links between the fascists in Germany and the fascists in Britain. For example, the Order of the Golden Dawn, a masonic-style secret society which had Aleister Crowley as a member, included German Nazis and British aristocrats. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

Mengele who reportedly worked for the CIA and helped to brainwash Oswald (aangirfan: Mengele, Oswald, the CIA )

3. Dr. Josef Mengele studied mind-control at Auschwitz. Children were tortured and sometimes died. (MENGELE, MOSSAD AND THE CIA).

One of Mengele’s reluctant assistants was Berthold Epstein, who was Jewish.

How the Nazis treated children

4. During World War II, at Colgate University in the USA, Dr. George Estabrooks of Colgate University was working on mind-control. (George Estabrooks – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

5. After World War II, the U.S. military brought a large number of the top German Nazi scientists to the United States. The code name for this operation was Project Paperclip. (aangirfan: MENGELE, MOSSAD AND THE CIA )

6. The CIA’s Project Bluebird, approved by director Allen Dulles in 1950, had the aim investigating the possibility of controlling a person by using certain interrogation techniques.

In 1953, the CIA set up Project MKULTRA to study mind-control. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

Reportedly, the Nazis brought to America, after World war II, helped with this project.

The methods used to produce mind-control included ‘electroshock’.

Operation Spellbinder was set up to create ‘sleeper’ assassins or ‘Manchurian candidates’.


MKULTRA child www.atasbawah.com/page/4/

In the early 1960s, the US military began Project Monarch. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

With Monarch, torture is used to produce mind-control.

The people whose minds have been controlled are reportedly used by the military as sex slaves. They can be used to blackmail politicians. They can be used to infiltrate organisations. They can be used to carry out assassinations or suicide bombings.

Reportedly, when the military are looking for people whose minds they can control, they look for people connected to orphanages, foster care homes, families linked to military intelligence, families with adopted children, families interested in Satanism andfamilies involved in child abuse.

Reportedly, many of the mind-control victims come from families linked to certain forms of Catholicism, Mormonism, or charismatic Christianity.

Reportedly, victims are often found to have scars or marks suggesting multiple electrical prods and mutilation by knives, branding irons, or needles. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

MKULTRA victim Blanche Chavoustie www.raven1.net/bcanomal.htm

7. Names linked to US mind-control experiments include Dr Ewen Cameron, Lt Col Michael Aquino, a Jewish doctor named Dr. Gruenbaum and Dr. Josef Mengele. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

Survivors of abuse under the Nazis remember Mengele torturing and killing a small child in front of a child he was programming.

Dr. D. Ewen Cameron was the former head of the Canadian, American and World Psychiatric Associations.

He carried out torture experiments on children at several locations in Montreal, including McGill University, St Mary’s Hospital and Allan Memorial Institute.

Cameron

Cameron used the technique called ‘psychic driving,’ where children were kept in a drug induced coma for several weeks and given electroshocks, while electronic helmets were strapped to their heads and repetitive auditory messages were transmitted at variable speeds.

(Gordon Thomas, Journey into Madness: The True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse, Bantam Books, 1989)

Many of the victims were abused children from Roman Catholic orphanages.

Project MKULTRA was publicly exposed in 1970, through lawsuits filed by Canadian survivors and their families. The CIA and Canadian government settled out of court.

(BBC documentary on Cameron Click here to watch. )

Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, Aquino was connected with the Presidio Army Base day care scandal, in which he was accused child molestation.

Dr. Sydney Gottleib and Lt. Col John Alexander are also said to be linked to MKULTRA.

Fort Detrick, where the anthrax came from.

8. The Monarch mind-control experiments reportedly took place at the following locations:

Cornell, Duke, Princeton, UCLA, University of Rochester, MIT, Georgetown University Hospital, Maimonides Medical Center, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital (Washington D.C.), Bell Laboratories, Stanford Research Institute, Westinghouse Friendship Laboratories, General Electric, ARCO and Manking Research Unlimited.

China Lake Naval Weapons Center, The Presidio, Ft. Dietrick, Ft. Campbell, Ft. Lewis, Ft. Hood, Redstone Arsenal, Offutt AFB, Patrick AFB, McClellan AFB, MacGill AFB, Kirkland AFB, Nellis AFB, Homestead AFB, Grissom AFB, Maxwell AFB and Tinker AFB

Langley Research Center, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Tavistock Institute and areas in or by Mt. Shasta, CA, Lampe, MO and Las Vegas, NV. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

Bush at Offutt on 9 11

9. One well known victim of CIA mind-control is Cathy O’Brien, who refers to abuse by her father, forced prostitution involving top people, and working as a drugs mule. (Trance-Formation.com – Cathy O’Brien’s website /Google Videos of Cathy O’Brien)

10. Paul Bonaci has testified about sexually-abused boys from Boy’s Town in Nebraska being taken to nearby Offutt Air Force Base, where he says they were subjected to mind-control programming.

Bonnaci remembers being flown, with other boys, from the Air Force base to California and Bohemian Grove. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

Some victims were apparently murdered.

Offutt air force base

It is supected that Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan-Sirhan, Charlie Manson, John Hinckley Jr., Mark Chapman, David Koresh, Tim McVeigh and John Salvi may have been mind-control victims. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton )

11. In 1992, Dr. Corydon Hammond, a Psychologist from the University of Utah, delivered a lecture entitled “Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse” at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality, in Alexandria, Virginia. (Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control by Ron Patton)

Hammond referred to the Nazi connection and military and CIA mind control research.

He is one of many people who have spoken out.

~~

aangirfan: THE ZANDVOORT NETWORK, JERSEY, DUTROUX, PORTUGAL…