MSN Home My MSN Hotmail Search Shopping Money People & Chat Sign in with your .NET Passport
go to Find your dream job
Switch to MSN Broadband
HomeMy CommunitiesHelp
What's New
  Join Now
  - Home  
  - World Whispers  
  - R&D; INTELL  
  - R&D; Intell Photos  
  - Bio Tech INTELL  
  - Med Tech INTELL  
  - Bio & Med Pics  
  - Tech Ops INTELL  
  - Tech Ops Pics  
  - Financial INTELL  
  - Predictive INTELL  
  - Political INTELL  
  - Energy INTELL  
  - Business INTELL  
  - Biz INTELL Pics  
  - Systems INTELL  
  - Sys INTELL Pics  
  - INTELL News  
  - INTELL Briefs  
  - CIA Watch  
  - DoD Watch  
  - DoD-Related Pics  
  - Pre-War Pics #1  
  - Pre-War Pics #2  
  - Pre-War Pics #3  
  - Foreign Interests  
  - INTELL Stories  
  - COSMIC Photos  
  - UFO & ETT Briefs  
  - UFO & ETT Pics  
  - X-FILES  
  - X-FILES Pics  
  - Archives  
  Host's Biography  
  Editorial & Rebuttal  
This area provides data formerly associated with their subject areas to a transfer here for previous data references.



INDONESIA, Jakarta - September 29, 2001: The U. S. Pacific Fleet, Commander-In-Chief, i.e. Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, doesn't just have his hands busy in Jakarta, Indonesia with regional peacekeeping efforts alone as, global Jack-In-The-Box Islamic-militant groups are popping up, creating havoc in many Countries all over the World.

Ever since they heard the Usama bin Laden "war cry" for a Jihad (aka)Holy War to commence against all Westerners as well as even their own Islamic Muslims who are "non-militants", we're seeing Islamic-militants as Jihad-fixated who are crawling out from every rock, piece of woodwork and sandstone crevice.

In Jakarta, it's the leader of the Islam Defenders Front (aka) FPI, i.e. Habib Riziq, whose whooping things up there with the students from the local area universities which, has American workers of oil companies in even East Kalimantan running for cover now.

Cities in in the area experiencing Islamic-militant unrest are: Jakarta, North Sumatra, Medan, Balikpapan, Benjarmasin, East & South Kalimantan and, elsewhere in this country.

Another Jack-In-The-Box

ALGERIA, Larba - September 29, 2001: In the Mitidja Plain area here, this is a virtual "hot-bed" of Islamic-militants where 150 people have been killed just in the month of September alone. Since 1992, over 100,000 people have been killed here as a result of Islamic-militant groups fighting Algerian government forces and it's no wonder why. This is also the former "home" of one of Usama bin Laden's major financial contributors called the, Islamic Salvation Front.

Web Names Link America Attacks - 1+ Years Ago

U.S.A., Washington, D.C. - September 19, 2001: The terrorists who planned and executed the September 11 attack on America may have registered as many as twenty (20) Internet domain names (aka) URL addresses, that experts believe should have warned authorities of a possible assault on the World Trade Center in New York City.

Names of, "" and "" were registered more than one (1) year ago. It's not known at this time who registered the suspicious names or what their purpose was. A spokeswoman in the FBI press office would only say that the agency will not comment on its investigation into the attacks.

At least 17 domain names, including ""and "" were registered as early as June 2000, fifteen (15) months prior to the attacks. Two of the domain names contained the dates August 11 and September 29, which Livingstone said may have indicated the window of opportunity during which the attackers planned to strike.

Dismissed is the speculation that the domain names were a reference to the bombing of the World Trade Center eight years ago. "You have two other names containing 2001, so there's no confusion over the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

A domain name search Tuesday indicated that hundreds of web addresses containing references to the terrorist attacks were registered in the past week, and four of the older domain names have already been re-registered.

Domain name registrants are required to use a credit card for payment, and must provide administrative, technical, and billing contact information. That information, except the credit card data, is available to the public as long as the registration is kept current. The required use of a credit card should mean that authorities would at least have a starting point to investigate the registrant.

The website of Network Solutions in Fairfax, Virginia is the world's largest domain name registrar, included a privacy statement indicative of industry standards regarding confidentiality: "We will not share such information with other third parties, except in response to formal requests (e.g., subpoena or court order) made in connection with litigation or arbitration proceedings directly relating to a domain name registration or other services we provide."

Former CIA Director James Woolsey indicated current laws make it difficult for the FBI to get a warrant for electronic surveillance and wiretaps, or to recruit informants based on actions such as registering threatening domain names. "There would not be enough material that is close enough to a specific crime for an investigation to be opened," Woolsey said.

The attackers might have been planning a propaganda campaign following the attacks. Maybe their success was so overwhelming that they didn't need to use this or, they may have decided it was too dangerous to do." Domain names on the list included:

"", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "".

Suspects Mixed Up On WTC Disaster

U.S.A., New York - September 14, 2001: CNN issued a correction today for their having wrongfully reported and accused two (2) men of being the terrorist-pilot(s) who flew into New York's World Trade Center (aka) WTC buildings on September 11, 2001.

CNN's statement read in-part: "We would like to correct a report that appeared on CNN. Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that, Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. CNN later learned that Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida, where he was questioned by the FBI. We are sorry for the misinformation. A federal law enforcement source now tells CNN that Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph and is not considered a suspect. Through his attorney, Bukhari says that he is helping authorities. Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year."

CNN reported information from "multiple law enforcement agencies" was correct however, it was the "information from multiple law enforcement sources" that was "not correct" which, led them to post the false information that Adnan Bukhari was one of the hijacking pilots. And that he was dead after blowing up the World Trade Center. And that his brother Ameer was another hijacking pilot. And that he was dead after blowing up the World Trade Center, too.

The problems with law enforcement's stories to CNN were that, Adnan Bukhari is alive and well and lives in Florida and, Adnan Bukhari wasn't on any hijacked plane. Adnan's brother, i.e. Ameer, had already died in an unrelated small plane crash the previous year (2000), making it impossible for him to have hijacked and been piloting any aircraft into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Not that consideration for things like "facts" have ever deterred the World of "multiple law enforcement sources" from falsely accusing anyone.

These "multiple law enforcement sources" who publicly proclaimed the guilt and deaths of two (2) people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the World Trade Center bombing and who were nowhere near the scene is the same law enforcement group who expects us to believe them when they claim that Usama bin Laden had something to do with it, too. The fact that their are a plethora of higher level suspects than Usama bin Laden himself and better equipped terrorist organizations which have a pattern for suicide bombings leads one to believe that the "true terrorist(s)" are not being publicized "yet". This might very well be for U.S. Government security concerns.

Last year, the U. S. Department Of Justice claimed, Usama bin Laden was involved with a man who snuck into Seattle, Washington from Canada to blow up "millenium issue targets". What was the proof? This same man who crossed into Seattle happened to have lived somewhere in Afghanistan during the 1970s as did Usama bin Laden. That seemed to be the sum total of the "proof". It's an example of what, "ties to Usama bin Laden" has meant in previous reports.

From the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen to the shores of New York, Usama bin Laden's name is on the headlines everywhere. What is not found however, is any mentions - by the media linking the American attacks on any other leader or group.

Another group known as the, Hezbollah (aka) Hizbullah (aka) Hizballa, has exhibited a long-standing history of suicide boat bombers and their incredible global networking of terrorist strike sophistication.

Usama bin Laden worked shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S. persons long ago in Afghanistan. Today, he leads a significant group of individuals and influences at least four (4) Country governments which, provide their "turn-the-other-way" official attitudes, when their own terrorist cells attack tourists and others abroad.

We needed someone to envision. A picture of the enemy for us to focus on. Let's hope we aren't looking at the wrong picture. CNN Issued Correction:

Usama bin Laden - Our C.I.A. Boomerang Monsters

U.S.A., Washington, D.C. - September 12, 2001: President George W. Bush announced that, the United States was officially at War as a result of the Nation having sustained damages from multiple international terrorist acts. He neglected to mention however, who the United States was at War with.

How did Usama bin Laden following terrorist-cells come to be fueled in the first place, has not been addressed by any of the U. S. news media.
Usama bin Laden, the Ayatollah Khomeni and General Manuel Noriega all have the same things in common. Drug cartel interests run by used-up stooge-type monsters having already been turned by the Central Intelligence Agency (aka) C.I.A.. With Usama bin Laden, there was a big difference as, considerable and unavoidable blowback was too late to be stopped.
Remember the "Afghan Freedom Fighters" we supported years ago during the Soviet-Afghan War? It was Usama bin Laden and his Islamic religious militant terrorist cells who we nourished into power and it was "that" monster which bit us here in America. And the monster we created years ago has been continuing to nibble at us and others for many years now since it seems that somehow, we may have actually made certain promises we either did not keep or just simply abandoned "him and the cause" back in Afghanistan like we did so many of our friends in Viet Nam when we left there. There was however, a subtle difference. No one was supposed to "know" that, the United States was in-fact in-directly "inside" Afghanistan back then.
The Soviet's war against Afganistan gave up much in the same fashion the U.S. did in Viet Nam. However, that Soviet posture continued to allow for the Taliban way of government to later on, maintain its rule over Afganistan citizenry. The Taliban government has been permitting Usama bin Laden's paramilitary Islamic extremists called, "al Qaeda" and others, free harboring and continued sanctuary for training and housing international terrorists within its borders however, it is Pakistan which has long financially supported, the Taliban government rule.

The following notes and referral pages to other points on this website are sensitive points of interest which, may serve to identify the Afganistan and Pakistan regime leaderships as those collective entities with which, the West will present their final ultimatum to "Give up Usama bin Laden or, else be blasted out of existence". Interesting problems arise from that type of psychological warfare simply because that part of the World knows full well what the United States initially fueled these terrorist cells. The U.S. did that with modern-era military warfare strategies, considerable funding, military armaments and, supplies. Our influences served to nurture Usama bin Laden-types of Islamic terrorist cells rather solidly in-place, long ago.

Residents of Afghanistan are in-part the un-witting victims of internal party struggles to gain one (1) supreme leadership government. Most Afghani residents are incredibly poor, underprivledged, starving and, virtually stuck and unable to move. Their transportation systems are inoperable for the most part. Afghani children on a daily basis, are killed or maimed from encountering landmines which were never cleaned up by anyone. These deadly explosive systems still remain buried in their home areas for even more suffering. The United Nations and International Red Cross help in Afghanistan has greatly diminished. In short, bombing and blasting on a widespread basis would counter all previous efforts to help Afghan people who are already suffering.

Surgical strikes might be effective "if" the target areas could be properly identified before these cells can go underground and begin traversing their tunnel systems therebut, that is highly unlikely this late in their game. Here are some points to consider:

1. Usama bin Laden has been extremely successful in his ability to unite and direct the carrying out of multiple and very well-planned Islamic-extremist terrorist-cell group's fight against the United States and in many other foreign Countries as well. Usama, via old CIA-type brainwashing techniques, has successfully mounted a new radical Islamic religious militant front which, fights U.S. interests both at home (domestic) and abroad (foreign). Usama's mentors or trainers as it unbelieveably turns out was "us", i.e. America. We, are wholly responsible for the indoctrination, training and support which created this monster's new radical Islamic militant religious front. as history now proves.

2. There exists today, a self-said member of Usama bin Laden’s "al-Qaede" terrorist cell. A Morrocan man by the name of, L'Houssaine Kherchtou, who was supposedly sent under direct orders of Usama bin Laden to Nairobi, Kenya in order to become a pilot. The true degree and sophistication of his pilot training skills were not initially revealed except to say that he said he performed some crop dusting on fields in Nairobi.

L'Housainne Khertou being only a crop dusting pilot training under Usama bin Laden directives was down-played by, U.S. Department of Justice officials during the first World Trade Center bombing in New York, years ago. It seems that L'Housainne was being trained many years ago in-advance for an ingenious plan. Although he would appear as only a low-profile type crop dusting pilot, L'Housainne was to have a future very high-profile. His future and significantly higher profile would appear when he would appear out of nowhere as a "sleeper" for Usama bin Laden as he was trained to use a new delivery method for chemical warfare attacks on World citizenry by, loading the plane's chemical tanks with deadly chemicals rather than crop chemicals.

Kherchtou L'Housainne and his family are safe within the U.S. Government's, Witness Protection Program now, after his aid many years ago in providing the U.S. with information leading to the conviction of the bombers who staged the New York World Trade Center bombing, years ago. The same men who were just "recently convicted".

3. Afganistan, is a country rich in history and tradition. It was once the crossroads of very ancient and medieval worlds. Today, Afghanistan (aka) Land Of Khurasan, is suffering a humanitarian crisis unprecedented in World history.

4. The United Nations High Commission for Refugee Resettlement (aka) UNHCRR has been instrumental in aid to relocating approximately 2.5-million former Afghan citizens as refugees to Pakistan and Iran, ½-million others are internally displaced and, 1-million or more are at risk of famine. This catastrophe is the result of over twenty (20) years of war and, the worst drought in memory where "water" continues as an ever-increasing problematic issue throughout the entire global region. The ruling Taliban regime is doing little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people.

5. Although Taliban leadership publicly declares a desire for their negotiated end to Afganistan Civil War strife, their radical Islamic religious militant form of Taliban government rule has now embraced Usama bin Laden trained terrorist cell troops as their own military and police force enforcement which, is currently undertaking fresh offensives against the Taliban opposition and conducting numerous illegal border crossing sqirmishes in norther neighboring Soviet-controlled countries such as Tajikistan.

6. The Taliban provides safe havens to indicted international terrorists and goes on even further to utilize the financial support from Pakistan to allow terrorist organizations to run and maintain terrorist-bred training camps in Taliban-controlled, Afghanistan territories. These policies de-stabilize the region and endanger people around the world.

7. The United Nations Security Council has passed two resolutions - UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000) - demanding the Taliban cease their support for terrorism.

8. The United States has great sympathy for the Afghan people and is the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance for Afghans through the United Nations' support efforts which, includes food, shelter, and medicine.

9. The United States participates in reviews by the United Nations Security Council to assure that the United Nations' sanctions avoid undue humanitarian impact on the Afghanistan people. See, e.g., "INTELL Briefs", "CIA Watch" and, "INTELL Photos" subject areas on this website.

U.S.A., Washington, D.C. - September 11, 2001: In a series of multiple terrorist strikes today within the United States, a rumor was begun amongst the confusion that, the U.S. State Department office building on "E" Street had somehow been threatened by a car bomb here however, it was not struck while, other targets instead were.
Multiple target strike locations ensued across other parts of the United States today with a variety of explosively destructive techniques.
In Arlington, Virginia the Pentagon building located in this Washington, D.C. Metroplex area was struck today by a terrorist group's newly implemented kamakazi-type air strike. Used in the attack was a comandeered U.S. commercially flown passenger airline which, was "flown-to-impact" on the Pentagon building itself which, resulted in the destrustion of its west wall and inner building areas. The passenger airline was used as the sole source of destruction by nosediving it into and colliding with the Nation's largest military single above-ground complex building here. The specific building-area destroyed was already under a partial re-construction effort included re-inforcing (via retro-fitting) the building's "window structures" to defend against armor-piercing bullet and small rocket projectile penetration plastic laminate glass and, outside eavesdropping penetration by using honeycomb-designed plastic-layer window tint.
Also, in another part of the United States at approximately 8:45 a.m. in New York City, New York, both of the World Trade Center twin-towered buildings were attacked via two (2) separately comandeered U.S. passenger airlines via yet another kamakaze-type nosedive, flown-to-impact (at 300-knots) strike. The second of the twin towers was impact strike came at approximately 9:03 a.m..
The twin-tower buildings which had formerly stood 110-stories tall were instantly reduced in minutes to only about 15-stories tall. That was all that remained of these twisted behemoth structures made up of cement, steel, glass.
An estimated fifty-thousand (50,000) human lives trapped within and outside "all of the buildings affected" in the area and those who were on the sidewalks and streets of the adjacent areas.
In the aftermath of this World Trade Center dual-strike, traffic vehicle buses, trucks, cars with their loaded human occupants as well as the pedestrians in the adjacent areas were literally disintegrated and/or, melded into streets and sidewalk's rubble below where these buildings once towered.
A new type of very ugly 21st Century graveyard appeared below where the twin-tower structures once stood after, they began to collapse "inwardly" in a cascading fountain of flame-melted destructive rubble.

Sri Lanka Boat Detained - Yemen Port
YEMEN, Aden - August 16 & 26, 2001: One-hundred and sixteen (116) Sri Lanka passengers still remain detained in an Aden, Yemen sea port for illegally arriving in Yemen territorial waters. The passengers arrived in two (2) boats on August 16 and 26, 2001 for refueling at Aden Sea Port. Security authorities at the Port detained the passengers after it entered this port area with their conventional boats.

The boats, are typically used for smuggling workers into neighboring countries. The boats were found to be overcrowded with most of its passengers had no passports or identity papers. The boats lacked safety measures with their large number of passengers. The owner of the boats would be contacted to send a well-equipped ship to collect them, was all the Yemen Port Authority said.

Yemen Military Returns 24 - Iraq Exile Via Syria?

YEMEN, Aden - September 2001: A Yemeni military returnee said he was just one of twenty-four (24) Yemeni Army Officers and Politicians returned Friday to Aden from Damascus, Syria after a seven (7) year exile. Lt. Col. Mahdi Shaush said that a group of twenty (20) military officers, four (4) military civilians and more than seventy-five (75) family members were returned from Damascus.

The returnees were leaders of the aborted Yemen 1994 secession attempt by former South Yemen which, had been unified with the former, Yemen Arab Republic in 1990. Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh earlier issued a pardon and gave his directives to ease the return of the exiles.

Yemen Sets Up Flights To Iraq - Asks Jordan

YEMEN, Sana'a - September 2001: Yemen has officially requested Jordan to allow Yemeni flights to cross Jordan airspace to Baghdad. The Al-Zawraa Newspaper mentioned that Yemen wanted to organize weekly flights from Sana'a to Baghdad to meet the increasing demands of travelers between the two cities.

Consequential Breakdowns - Afghanistan

Taliban Government's Viewpoint

"They [ Americans ] are really unspeakable. Many [ Afghanistan ]factories and companies will close down; some have already done that. Many businessmen face problems with their bankers. In other words, they do not have the necessary facilities. They are bankrupt. When such factories close down, the unemployment growth rate will ride high, the price of the U.S. Dollar will witness a free rise vis-a-vis the Yemeni Riyal, and we [ Afghanistan ] will witness many other economic problems that will plague our society.

Afghanistan Invasions

The recent problems in Afghanistan started in 1979. Afghanistan was a peaceful country. The Russians, along with their 140,000 troops attacked Afghanistan in the December of 1979, just twenty-one (21) years ago, stayed there for a decade, killed one and a half million people, maimed one million more people, and six million out of the eighteen million people migrated because of the Russian brutalities. Even today, our children are dying because of the landmines that they planted  for us. And nobody knows about this.

After the Russians left during the Russian occupation, on the other side, the American government, the British government, the French, the Chinese, and all of the rest, supported the counter-revolutionaries called the Mujahideen; There were seven [Mujahideen] (7) parties only in Pakistan and eight (8) parties in Iran who fought  the Russian occupation. And after the Russians left, these parties went into Afghanistan.

All of them [Mujahideen] had different ideologies, and a lot of weapons. And instead of having a single administration, they fought in Afghanistan. The destruction that they brought was worse than the destruction the Russians brought. 63,000 people were only killed in the capitol, Kabul. Another million people migrated because of this lawlessness.

The Beginning of The Taliban

Seeing this destruction and lawlessness, a group of students called the Taliban. A group of students which, started a movement called
the Movement of Students. It first started in a village in the southern Kandahar province of Afghanistan. It happened when a warlord
[commander] abducted two (2) minor girls and violated them. The parents of those girls went to a school and asked the teacher of the school to help them. The teacher of that school, along with his fifty-three (53) students, finding only sixteen (16) guns, went and attacked the base of that commander. After releasing those two girls, they hanged that commander and so many of his people were also hanged.

This story was told everywhere. The British Broadcast Corporation (aka) B.B.C. also quoted this story. Hearing this story, many other students joined this movement and started disarming the rest of the warlords. This same student's movement now controls ninety-five percent (95%) of the country [Afghanistan] including its capital [Kabul]. Only a bunch of those warlords are remaining in the northern [Northern Alliance] corridor of Afghanistan.

Spoils Of War & Achievements

Afghanistan is called the Crossroads of Asia [(aka) The Land Of Khursan]. So, we are suffering because of our geo-strategic location. We have suffered in the 18th Century, 19th Century, and we are still suffering in this century. We have not [ever] attacked the British. We have not [ever] attacked the Russians. It was them who attacked us. So the problems in Afghanistan you see are not our creation.

Afghanistan Taliban Achievements

We have been in government [Taliban] for only five (5) years, and the following things that we have done, and many of you may not know:

1. The first thing we have done is reunifying the fragmented country. Afghanistan was formerly fragmented into five parts. We unified it when nobody else could do it.;

2. Second thing we have done, which everybody failed to do, was disarming the population. After the [Afghan] war every Afghan got a Kalashnikov [Russian-type manufactured, automatic rifle], and even sophisticated weapons such as stinger missiles, and they even got fighter planes and fighter helicopters. Disarming these people seemed to be impossible. The United Nations in 1992 made an appeal asking for 3-Billion dollars to re-purchase those arms. And because of its impracticality, that plan never materialized, and everybody forgot about Afghanistan. So the second thing we have done is to disarm 95% of that country.;

3. The third thing that we have done is to establish a single administration in Afghanistan, which did not exist for 10 years.;

4. The fourth achievement that we have that is surprising to everybody is that we have eradicated seventy-five percent (75%) of World's opium cultivation [i.e. white and red opium poppy plants]. Afghanistan produced 75% of World's opium. And last year we issued an edict asking the people to stop growing opium, and this year, the United Nations Drug Control Program (aka) UNDCP, and their head, Mr. Barnard F. proudly announced that there was zero percent (0%) of opium cultivation. Zero, zilch, none at all.;

Incidentally this was not good news for the U.N. itself because many of them lost their jobs. In the UNDCP, seven-hundred (700) so called experts were working there and they got their salaries and they never went into Afghanistan. So when we issued this edict, I know that they were not happy. And this year they lost their jobs.; and,

5. The fifth achievement that we have, is the restoration of Human rights. Now, you may think that we are involved in violation of Human Rights. The reality is exactly the opposite. Among the fundamental rights of a human being is the right to live. Before us, nobody could live peacefully in Afghanistan. The first thing we have done, is to give to the people a secure and peaceful life. The second major thing that we have restored is to give them free and fair justice; you don't have to buy justice, unlike here. In Afghanistan justice is free and readily available.

Women's Rights In Afghanistan

We have been criticized for violating women's rights. Do you know what happened before us? I can see some Afghans living here, and they will agree with me, that in the rural areas of Afghanistan, women were used as animals. They were sold actually. We stopped this abominable practice.

They didn't use to have any say in the selection of their husbands. First thing we have done is to let them choose their future. Another thing that used to happen in Afghanistan was women were exchanged as gifts. Of course, this was not something religious; this was something cultural. When two fighting tribes wanted reconciliation, they would exchange women. And this has been stopped.

Unlike what is generally said women do work in Afghanistan. True that until 1996 when we captured the capital Kabul, we did ask women to stay home. It didn't mean that we wanted them to stay at home forever. We said that there is no law, and there is no order, and you have to stay at home.

We disarmed the people, and we established law and order, and now women are working. True, that women are not working in the ministry of defense, like here. We don't want our women to be fighter pilots, or to be used as objects of decoration for advertisements. But they do work. They work in the Ministry of Health, Interior, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Affairs, and so on.

Similarly we don't have any problem with women's education. We have said that we want education, and we will have education whether or not we are under anybody's pressure, because that is part of our belief. We are ordered to do that. When we say that there should be segregated schools, it does not mean that we don't want our women to be educated. It is true that we are against co-education; but it is not true that we are against women's education.

We do have schools even now, but the problem is the resources. We cannot expand these programs. Before, our government numerous curriculums were going on. There were curriculums that preached for the kings, curriculums that preached for the communists, and curriculums from all the seven parties. So, the students were confused as to what to study. We have started to unify the curriculum and that is going on.

Recently, we reopened the Faculty Of Medical Science in all major cities of Afghanistan and in Kandahar [province]. There are more girl students studying than boys are. But, they are segregated. And the Swedish committees have also established schools for girls. I know they are not enough, but that is what we have been able to do.

Usama bin Laden

We are also accused of sponsoring terrorism. And for Americans terrorism or terrorist means only [Usama] bin Laden. Now you will not know that Afghanistan, or bin Laden was in Afghanistan for 17 years before we even existed. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, fought the Soviet Union, and Mr. Ronald Reagan, the President of America at that time, and Mr. Dick Cheney called such people "Freedom Fighters" or the "Heroes of Independence" because, they were fighting for their cause. And now when the Soviet Union is fragmented, such people were not needed anymore, and they were transformed into terrorists. From heroes to terrorists. This is exactly like Mr. Yasser Arafat who was transformed from a terrorist to a hero.

What is the difference between those acts that Usama bin Laden is blamed for and the 1998 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan. Neither of the two were declared and both of them killed civilians. If it means killing civilians blindly, both of them killed civilians blindly.

The United States Government tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial. In 1998, they just sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and they announced that they were trying to kill Usama bin Laden. We didn't know Usama bin Laden then. I didn't know him; he was just a simple man. So we were all shocked. I was one of those men who was sitting at home at night, I was called for an immediate council meeting and we all were told the United States had attacked Afghanistan. With seventy-five (75) cruise missiles they tried to kill one man. And they missed that man; killed nineteen (19) other students and never apologized for those killings.

What would you do if you were in our situation. If we were to go and send 75 cruise missiles into the United States and say that we were going to kill a man that we thought was responsible for our Embassy [bombing], and we missed that man, and we killed 19 other Americans what would the United States do? An instant declaration of war. But we are polite. We did not declare war.

Proposals & Rejections

Rather we have been very open-minded on this issue. We have said, that if really this man is involved in the Kenya and Tanzania U. S. Embassy bombing acts, if anybody can give us proof or evidence about his involvement in these horrific acts, we will punish him. Nobody gave us evidence. We put him on trial for forty-five (45) days and nobody gave us any kind of evidence. The United States told us they did not believe in our judicial system. We were surprised as to what kind of judicial system they have? They just tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial. Even if one of us is a criminal here, the police are not going to blow his house; he must go to a court first.

So our first proposal was rejected. They [U. S.] said they do not believe in our judicial system, and we must extradite him to New York. After the rejection of this first proposal was we said we were ready to accept an international monitoring group to come into Afghanistan and monitor this man's activities in Afghanistan. So that he does nothing. Even that he has no telecommunications. That proposal was also rejected.

The third proposal we gave, six months ago, was that we were ready to try or accept the trial of Osama bin Laden in a third Islamic country, with the consent of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. That was also rejected.

We are still very open minded. And for the fourth time, I am here, with a letter from my leadership that I m going to submit to the [U. S.] State Department hoping that they will resolve the problem. But I don't think that they'll.

Because we think, and I personally think now that maybe the United States is looking for a boogey man always. Remember what Gorbachev said? He said, that he's going to do the worst thing ever to the United States. And everybody thought that he's going to blow the United States with nuclear weapons. But he said, I'm going to remove their enemy. And then he fragmented Soviet Union. And he was right. After he fragmented Soviet Union, a lot of people lost their jobs in the Pentagon, in the CIA, and the FBI, because they were not needed anymore. So we think that maybe these guys are looking for a boogey man now. Maybe they want to justify their annual budget, maybe they want to make their citizens feel that they are still needed to defend them.

Afghanistan is not a terrorist state; we cannot even make a needle. How are we going to be a terrorist state? How are we going to be a threat to the world? If the world terrorism is really derived from the word terror, then there are countries making weapons of mass destruction, countries making nuclear weapons, they are terrorist states; we are not."

Statues vs. Starving - People Support Taliban

Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi is the roving Ambassador from Afghanistan who recently visited the U.S.. The following, is a foreign edited version of the transcription pertaining to his lecture given at the University Of Southern California in Los Angeles, California on March 10, 2001.

"I was just coming from a meeting with a group of scholars, and the first thing we started talking about there was the statues. And the first thing we started talking about here was also the statues. It is very unfortunate how little we see and how little we know. Nobody has seen the problems of Afghanistan; nobody saw their problems before. And the only thing that represents Afghanistan today are the statues.

Now, we are under sanctions. And the sanctions have caused a lot of problems. Despite that we already had been going through so many problems--- the 23 years of continuous war, the total destruction of our infrastructure, and the problem of refugees, and the problem of [Soviet Aghan-War Army] landmines in our agricultural lands --- all of a sudden the United Nations, with the provocation of Russia, is imposing sanctions on Afghanistan. And the sanctions have been approved; we are under sanctions. Several hundred (700) children died a month ago. Seven hundred children died because of malnutrition and the severe cold weather. Nobody even talked about that. Everybody knows about the statues.

When the World is destroying our future with economic sanctions, then they have no right to worry about our past. I called my headquarters, I asked them, why are they [Taliban] going to blow [destroy] the statues, and I talked to the head of the [Taliban Government's] Council of Scholars of People, who had actually decided this, he told me that UNESCO and, an un-identified Non-Governmental Organization (aka) NGO from one of the Scandinavian countries possibly Norway, Sweden had actually come with a project to rebuild the face of Afghani statues, which were worn by weather elements. They [Taliban] told them to spend that [UNESCO & NGO] money in saving the lives of these children, instead of spending it to restore these statues. And these guys [UNESCO & NGO] said, "No, this money is only for the statues." And the people were really pissed off. They said that, If you don t care about our children, we are going to blow those statues. If you were in such a situation what would you do? If your children are dying in front of your eyes, and you are under sanctions, and then the same people who have imposed sanctions and are coming and building statues here? What would you do?

United Nations - Secretary General - Kofi Annan

Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, went to Pakistan, and he said he is going to meet our representative there. This man never bothered to come, to talk about these children, he never bothered himself to talk about six (6) million refugees, and he never talked about the poverty of Afghanistan. He only goes to that region because of these statues.

It is really, really ridiculous. These people do not care about children, about people who are dying there, about the foreign interference that still exists; they only care about the statues. And I am sure they don't care about our heritage. They only care about their picnic site one time. Maybe they'll have a good picnic site there, seeing those statues.

And I'm sure these sanctions which are imposed on our [Taliban] government will never change us, because for us, our ideology is everything. To try to change our ideology with economic sanctions will never work. It may work in the United States, where the economy is everything, but for us, our ideology is everything. And we believe that it is better to die for something than to live for nothing."

U.S.S. Cole - Conflicting Reports

YEMEN, Aden - September 2000: The Aden, Yemen naval base Commander General Mohammad Ali Ibrahim, reportedly said that, the explosion that ripped through the side of the U.S.S. Cole showed it was not caused "intentionally by external forces." He said the explosion "was most likely caused by a technical malfunction in the U.S. destroyer itself . . . the large hole the explosion left in the vessel shows it is far-fetched that it was caused by explosive devices, no matter how big."

Private U. S. sources held that the fact remained, the ends of the steel hull plates appear to have snapped, torn and ripped away rather than, a massive bending. The deck plates appeared to be bowed upwards showing that the impact did carry from inside the ship and spread upward, according to very private U.S. sources.

U.S. sources revealed that, shooting (as its referred to) or cracking steel plates is an exact science with the bomber normally using pre-shaped line charges cut to order and backed with wood and metal frames. However, underwater or at water level, 55-gallon drums of SEMTEX (a plastique-type stable explosive) or pre-mixed ANFO (a mixed unstable explosive) either in the boat (highly unlikely as it would have taken between 1,000 to 1,500-lbs. of SEMTEX to detonate that type of explosive force and a rubber inflatable boat probably couldn't carry that much weight on board without it being severly low at water level however, it might have been towed underwater which might have accomplished an act like this. Water under explosive pressure at a high order of detonation such as this was like a steel fist punching "inward" though and not "outward".

U.S.A., Massachusettes, Nantuckett - October 31, 1999: Ordinary American citizens - as ground observers - thought they saw a ground-launched rocket or missle fly up off the East coast of the United States and hit Egypt Air - a Boeing 767 passenger airline - Flight 990, i.e. MSR990 which, exploded and went down into the Atlantic Ocean about 60 nautical miles (112-km) off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts where 217 people were killed. Some speculated it had been blown up by an onboard explosion while some wondered if it may have been shot down by some sort of surface-to-air missle somewhere off the East coast of the United States.
Many questions came to mind about the cause of the airplane's sudden "fall" after its explosion at 11,000 feet elevation after 40 minutes of its take-off from Kennedy International Airport in New York. This tragedy, the worst in the aviation history of Egypt and the worst of the century, has been shrouded with a great mystery more than any other similar tragedies. What made it even more mysterious is the confusing and strange conclusions reached by the American authorities about the details of the incident, which puzzled the intellect of many in the investigation and police fields.
Many neutral investigators are almost definite that the tragedy happened as a result of "sabotage". They asked, " What has hit the plane (in the tail) without leaving any trace or evidence of the cause?" They also asked about the nature of "the sabotage": was it something that was done from outside the plane while flying or if it was actually something "implanted" inside the plane. Whatever the cause, there has to be someone who caused the incident.
Some investigators used the "know who would benefit from the act to know who did it" in their research. Meanwhile, others searched closely in a series of events that came before, during and after the bodies of all 217 victims ended up in the bottom of the ocean or eaten by its sharks and whales. So those events became givings that lead them to draw a sketch of the culprit, or, at least show his fingerprints.
Here is a series of events or coincidences as in the language of investigators:
Sixteen (16) Hidden Coincidents

1. "There were thirty-four (34) Generals of different ranks from the Egyptian Armed Forces on board the plane. Among them was a General who has a Doctorate degree in atomic sciences, and more than twenty (20) pilots who successfully completed training in operating Apache helicopters that were sold recently to Egypt. Also on board were other generals who successfully completed training in launching the famous American Patriot anti-misssle missiles. The training of all those generals lasted three (3) years and has cost Egypt $3-Billion, which Egypt paid in full.;

2. Israel vehemently denounced the training program of those Generals upon their arrival in the U.S. three (3) years ago, and Israel called the training program "a threat to Israel's security".;

3. Cairo started a big campaign to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction. The campaign has targeted mainly Israel since it is the only country in the region that possesses such dangerous weapons.;

4. Israel started a campaign accusing Egypt of seeking to modernize its armed forces, and of possessing missiles that threaten the security of Israel, especially so because the Army's Generals who came to train in the U.S. will be exposed to the secrets of the joint American-Israeli missiles and jet fighter's technology.;

5. Egyptian Defense Minister, Muhammed Hassan Tantawi, announced last October (2000) that war with Israel is not ruled out. He also announced that Egypt therefore is continuously building its armed forces to be in a state of readiness.;

6. One day before the tragedy, the American authorities provided hotel accommodation in a 3-star hotel for the airplane crew, which constitutes a violation of the simplest norms of international aviation, where the crew is usually accommodated in the airport hotel or, in a 5-star hotel.;

7. On the same day, a crew of pilots and flight attendants of an Israeli airline  (EL AL) plane checked in the same hotel with a General form the Israeli Intelligence (aka) Mossad who was in charge of the crew's luggage and personal belongings.;

8. Just a few hours prior to the incident, one of the Egypt Air flight crew complained to the hotel security that someone has sneaked into his room, because he noticed signs of someone's attempt to open his suitcase by breaking the locks. But the hotel security assured him of no foul play as long as nothing was missing.;

9. The day of the incident, Edward McLaughlin, an Israeli-American, who is a vice-president of an American civil agency was one of the passengers onboard [the first travel-leg of] Egypt Air flight from Los Angeles, California to New York City, New York in route to Cairo, Egypt. But, when the plane landed in New York City, Mcglauglen [?] refused to continue his journey to his final destination, i.e. Cairo for fear of possible "planting of a bomb by one of the passengers" at his first stop, i.e. New York City.;

10. The same day of the incident, the American authorities opted to take the flight crew's luggage from the hotel through the halls to the plane itself. Meanwhile the Mossad General opted to take the luggage of the crew of the EL AL flight to the Israeli plane himself. But the luggage of the crews of both Egypt Air and EL AL ended up being taken from the hotel to the airport in the same car that took the Mossad General to the Israeli airline plane.;

11. Prior to the Egypt Air flight departure, the American authorities had inspected the plane for three (3) hours which, is a very unusually long time in aviation norms. Also it has been reported that airport security had not given similar attention to any other plane that day.;

12. After forty (40) minutes of the flight's departure, contact with the plane was lost over the Edward American naval base [?], which is known to have anti-aircraft missiles, some of which are ready to be launched automatically by the mere sensing of an object passing over at a certain elevation.;

13. After the incident, three (3) eye witnesses testified to the investigators that they saw the plane on fire as it was falling down. Fox News also has confirmed in its own investigation of the incident that the plane had exploded in mid-air before its fall according to what was seen on the radar screens.;

14. The American investigation team reported that the plane fell down from 33,000 feet to 19,000 feet in 40 seconds, 'which, according to aviation experts, is a speed equal to a free fall due to earth gravity, which makes it evident that the plane has fallen down in pieces and not as one body. Because the body of the plane is designed in a way that makes it impossible for the body of the plane to descend at a speed in access of 7,000 feet per second'. Aviation experts also add that 'even if the engines of the plane stopped working, it would still be possible to land the plane at the nearest airport.';

15. After ten (10) hours of the incident, a member of the American investigation team announced that they have found the black box that records details of events in the last moments just before the plane's fall. However, the next day, the American official spokesman denied finding the box and said that the investigation team is still searching for it.;

16. There were 34 Generals from the Egyptian Army on board 'the plane', which is a violation of Egyptian Army rules that 'prohibit' more than three (3) Generals to be on board the same flight, domestic or international, for security of the Generals. This decision was reached in 1978 after 'the downing' in the Western Sahara of the flight that had Ahmad Badawi on board in which twelve (12) Generals have died. At that time the fingers pointed to "the Israeli enemy" and the American intelligence.


 Satellite Links & Usama's New Hideout
YEMEN, Aden - September 17th, 2001 - Usama bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in 1996. While in Sudan though, he had actually been fighting in Afghanistan for most of those five (5) years. But, he made plans to leave his former al-Qaeda headquarters within the Kandahar province of Afghanistan, long before mid-August of 2001..
Bin Laden's newly eyed home in Yemen, will probably be tucked away but, situated near a 350-meter tall cliff topped by a summit in Yemen's more mountainous regions. This area also happens to be riddled with man-made caves which are still controlled by, the Bani Dhabyan tribesmen out of Khawlan province near Shibam, Yemen. Germans built the road to the top of this mountain region many years ago.
The German influence is prevalent in Yemen. YEMENIA AIRWAYS, caters to German citizen tourists, but, not all Yemeni's are friendly toward most tourists and that, includes the Germans. See, e.g., "Foreign Briefs", on this website.
German Hostages Always Moved to Mountains
Tribesmen in Yemen, kidnapped a German Commercial Attaché by the name of, Rainer Burns, and moved him to a mountainous area that is difficult for even Yemen government troops to reach. They added they moved him there after the tribesmen fired five (5) Rocket Propelled Grenade (aka) RPG missiles which were fired at the government forces stationed in the area. The German hostage was moved while the government's troops sat there watching him, but remained helpless as the kidnappers pointed guns at his head and threatened to kill him if the troops made any attempt to intervene.
Abductors took the German diplomat on foot to a mountainous area amid news reports that his health condition had greatly deteriorated. A tribal source added that kidnappers Mohammed Ali Al-Zaidi, Ahmed Ali Al-Zaidi and a third (3rd) person, all belong to the Al-Zaidi tribe and refused to submit themselves or the hostage to Sheikh Rabish bin Ka'alan, Sheikh Sultan Al-Aradah and, Sheikh Tariq Al-Fathli.
Shiek Tariq Al-Fathli - sent by the Yemen President along with the other two (2) Sheikhs - is a well-known Usama bin Laden terrorist-cell network commander who was at first, wanted by Yemen authority interests for having committed terrorist crimes but, then became an Interior Ministry "house-guest" inside one of Yemen's top official's home.
* * * * *
Why, Yemen? Usama bin Laden's Father was originally from these reaches. Besides, Usama "himself" went on record telling on himself and of his plan to return to Yemen in order to save Afghanistan from destruction should the United States come looking for him there. (see below)
Yemen also happens to hold cement-related material interests which might have something to do with his Father's businesses. There is no doubt that Yemen has Usama's Father 's old ties there but, even more importantly, the entire northern reaches of Yemen are about 100% Muslim and the mountainous areas are riddled with loads of Islamic terrorists which makes Yemen an ideal sanctuary for Usama bin Laden now.
Usama's tycoon billionaire Father headed up a Saudi-based (Arabia) firm known as, The BinLaden Group. Today this international firm is a multi-billion dollar cement-type building contractor which, builds posh skyscraping hotels for the "Four Seasons Hotel" chain amongst others. It also builds interstate roads and airport runways and has at its disposal a plethora of engineers familiar with construction and demolition techniques. Even the Portland Cement organization in America, looks in awe at The BinLaden Group accomplishments and contracts which, rank high, in cement construction technologies.
At the current time though, Usama has more problems than just the U.S. looking for him with his ailing kidney - possibly requiring special medication and/or, dialysis by now - and his satellite phone - one cannot call easily from remote regions with simple "cell phones" since, other issues prevail. Ghazni Afghanistan government's commercial satellite telephone center no longer has him in their phone system by choice so, who, where and, how would Usama go to for even more secure communication link-ups?
Communications is a major priority in any war campaign's security. Where else to hide Usama's communications links but, right under the noses of the Country who expelled him, his homeland of Saudi Arabia.
With corporate espionage being what it is and corporate contracts and bids being worth literally billions of dollars to The BinLaden Group of Usama's Father, has established its own privatized satellite links for communications. An ideal place to hide Usama's terrorist network communication's signals within.
There exists, a distinctly elaborate Saudi telecommunication satellite system besides ArabSat for not only cellular and satellite phones but, for internet use as well.
What with the terrorist business of Usama and his Supervisor being what it is today, pressing needs to issue holy war orders or, war-theme
fatwahs, might very well be communicated not by satellite phone alone or P-C computers. Instead, of using a laptop computer which requires expensive re-chargeable batteries with an A-C power current handy, what do you do when your no where near an electrical outlet while your hiding in an Usama bin Laden man-made cave in Yemen?
Palm-Top or Hand-held P-C only use small-size batteries to operate. They're easier to send e-mail or even issue e-fatwahs, i.e. electronic and wirelessly sent, holy - Jihad - orders which, could provide a new high-tech slant for communicating terrorist strike plans. The use of ancient Yemen tribesman symbolic codes would make intrepretation of communications extremely difficult to identify, trace and, decypher by any intelligence agency's listening posts worldwide and could easily serve Usama bin Laden terrorist-cell networks, globally.
Sending e-mailed scripture fatwahs via Palm-Top hand-held devices to communicate globally with terrorist commanders and by using just a few of oh so many tapped-into family's The Bin Laden Group privatized satellite links, Usama and his Boss would no doubt profit in terrorism and world market online stock tradings. Just simply and very easy courtesies could be extended to Usama from his Father's old family and friends in Yemen does however, make some sense. But, how do we put Usama in Yemen especially just after the U.S.S. Cole attack? Simple.
Usama bin Laden also has another close running mate and military subordinate, i.e., Dr. Ayman Zawahri (aka) Iman Zowaheri, resident of Switzerland who is also, the leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Escaping from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka would not be too awfully difficult but, why would Usama go to Sri Lanka? Getting in to Yemen would be easy.
Around the middle of August 2001, Yemen seized two (2) boats which came into port for re-fueling. These boats were over-filled with supposed illegals, i.e. "smuggled laborers", many of whom had absolutely "no identification". They Yemen Port Authority was simply told that nothing was out of the ordinary for they only had on-board "peasants" seeking Saudi jobs where everyone knows "the money is" and where it is rumored that even for peasant laborers become rich.
There was just one problem with that story though. The number of passengers at first, totalled one-hundred and sixteen (116) passengers but, only 112 were actually detained. What happened to the other four (4) passangers? More importantly, did the "same" four passengers who were "not detained" amount to the same passengers who left Yemen in yet another boat? Or, was it dropping off 4 people in Yemen. If so, who was dropped off and who got back on board and how many passengers actually "left" Yemen. Did people get off the boat and hide while others re-boarded taking their place instead?
Yemen is always newsworthy. It also just received back, some of its former citizens. Persons who, from their previous exile to Iraq, included some high level military commanders. Of the twenty-four (24), one is a Yemen Chief Intelligence Commander as well as, others who arrived via Damascus, Syria recently, in September 2001.
Figure out how 24 people who were exiled to go to Iraq, wind up coming home from Syria, instead. Were they "really" in exile in Iraq or sent to one of those infamous Soviet-managed Syrian terrorist training centers or war colleges?

24 Exiled Yemeni Military Officers Back Home

A Yemeni military returnee said that 24 Yemeni army officers and politicians returned Friday to Aden from Damascus, Syria after a seven (7) year exile. Lt. Col. Mahdi Shaush said that a group of 20 officers, 4 civilians and more than 75 family members returned from Damascus. The returnees were leaders in the abortive 1994-secession attempt by formerly South Yemen that had been unified with former Yemen Arab Republic in 1990. President Ali Abdullah Saleh earlier issued a pardon and gave his directives to ease the return of the exiles.

* * *

Now, Usama bin Laden probably left Afghanistan sometime around mid-August of 2001. He probably went out undercover with a small attachment of his personal contingency security force. Perhaps, about ten (10) of his closest and most trusted associates guarding him which, may very well have included, Mohammed Atef (aka) Abu Hafs and perhaps even, Mohamed Shawqi Islambouli (leader of the "Gama'at Al-Islamiyya") and maybe others who set out to claim their new safe haven and harbor inside Yemen too.

How was Usama and his band of merry men able to pull off their great escape? Most often a "low profile" is required when trying to hide and travel at the same time. Airports are avoided as are larger ocean-going vessels. But, the group, huddled in two (2) small boats, mixing as a Sri Lanka peasant laborers seeking better work opportunities in Saudia Arabia, wouldn't be unusual. In fact, it would be a safe and undetected journey toward the Arabian Pennisula area from his original point of departure in Afghanistan.
Could they have been in the two small boats which, were in-fact actually detained recently by Aden, Yemen Port Authority recently, here in August 2001? Was Usama bin Laden one of one-hundred and nineteen (116) Sri Lanka peasant laborer passengers who had no identification?. See, e.g. "Foreign Briefs" on this website.
It was afterall, the Usama bin Laden pattern to be conveniently "missing" from where he was always thought to be at, while in Afghanistan.
Usama bin Laden, in his own words even said, "Before the U.S. strikes out against Afghanistan to turn me over to U.S. authority, I will return to the birthplace of my Father. In essence Usama planned on, Yemen, years ago but, once again every Country's intelligence service missed that piece of juicy foreign information.
A rather interesting and recent note should be attached to Usama bin Laden's running mate now. Swiss resident, Dr. Ayman Zawahri, was recently made to be a part of a highly unusual "staged abduction" of himself. This odd act was sponsored by, Egyptian Intelligence Service agents in Cairo, Egypt. This was odd, for some individuals actually witnessed and reported it. Dr. Zawahri is wanted on serious charges in Cairo and around the World but, was secretly released shortly after his staged abduction by Egyptian authorities before he disappeared again.
Even stranger was the fact that one of the former attacks on the New York World Trade Center years ago, had an interesting defendant who was recently convicted. This particular co-bomber was not only a U.S. Citizen but, a former member of the U.S. Special Forces and, an Egyptian Army Sargeant but, this 48-yr. old man, i.e. Ali Mohamed, was also, an intelligence officer for the Usama bin Laden supreme terrorist-cell, al-Qaeda.
So it seems as though Usama bin Laden's ability to recruit extremely talented mercenaries into his waged holy-war campaign against Americans is not such a difficult task for him to accomplish.
The United States had planned to try to cement a permanent U.S. military base facility on the Yemen island of Socotra which, is the ironic part of Usama's move here but, it was also the birthplace of his Father too.
Usama bin Laden is the Son-in-Law of Afghanistan's Taliban Supreme Leader, i.e. Mullah Mohammad Omar, who went on record as saying that, "Even if one-half of Afganistan is destroyed by war, I wouldn't give up the other half for turning over Usama bin Laden to the United States" and then went and noted that besides, "one-half of Afghanistan is 'already' destroyed by war." Usama married his fourth (4th) Wife a couple of years ago at age 14.
Usama's Arab volunteers are currently involved in Taliban military offensives throughout the northern regions of Afghanistan but, in particular opposition to the Northern Alliance (aka) United Front forces there near their neighboring other countries.
Usama bin Laden vowed long ago that before Afghanistan was targeted for destruction from United States efforts to secure him that, he would return to the homeland of his Father which, was Yemen but, in a mountainous region of northern Yemen.
Usama's Father - originally from Yemen - was a non-royal family citizen of Saudi Arabia and a Billionaire tycoon who headed up a firm called, The Bin Laden Group which, provides cement building contract services which includes construction efforts on international multi-billion dollar interstate roadways, airstrip runways and hotels such as the global expanse of the well known Four Seasons Hotel chain and other interests. Usama bin Laden was to receive a portion of his Father's inheritance wealth which was said to be valued around $300-million dollars when, Usama had his citizenship revoked by Saudi ArabiaUsama bin Laden never personally collected the $300-million inheritance however, he may have arranged for it to be held as security on loans for purchasing other revenue generating non-governmental organizations.
Today, Usama bin Laden is said to be worth in excess of $500-million dollars and hides the vast amount of his money in a Swiss-bordered bank probably under an alias provided by his best friend, Dr. Ayman Zawahri.
It's been a long and ardous struggle for Usama in Afghanistan which, began with his U.S. backed war efforts ousting the Soviet's Red Army communist regime in 1989, his work with the Mujahideen and now finally the Taliban.
Pakistan-Taliban Corruption - U. S. Trap
PAKISTAN,  Peshwar - September 14th, 2001 - Pakistan money funneling via the Pakistan Ambassador to the Taliban government and its terrorist sponsors has gone on for years to the tune of millions of Rs. Some of the covert ruses used to launder terrorist monies out of Pakistan were earmarked for "road repairs in Kabul".
Over 1,000 Sunni-Islamic religion extremist-type radical students known as the, Madressah are responsible for the majority of the uprisings within Pakistan. These specific students have Afghanistan's Taliban, al-Qaeda-influenced government agents who have incited and nurtured these students into creating virtual hot-beds for anti-U.S. sentiment throughout Pakistan. Only twenty-five (25) miles from Peshawar, Pakistan hundreds of student radicals amass on occasion at the Darul Uloom Haqania facility at Akora Khattak as a staging platform for violent student protests which serve to disrupt Pakistan societal norms along with disrupting the current U.S. cooperative dictatorship already in place.
Former C.I.A. Monsters - Out Of Control
USA, D.C., Washington - September 11th, 2001 ( 9-11 ) Brought to past, the devastating kamakazi-type air strike on three (3) locations within the United States with comandeered commercial passenger jet aircraft airlines which were "flown-to-impact" creating a wake of death and mass destruction the likes of which, the World has never seen during peacetime. These attacks were wrought on American soil sites from out of the extremist and radical wrath of paramilitary global-wide Islamic-extremist terrorist-cell groups.
Names: There are a multitude of group and splinter group names and some with "no names". Identifying a terrorist cell via its "label" will not necessarily serve to identify the true culprits of their terrorist attacks in these instances since, many cells are instantly formed and then disbanded and then members are re-joined and split-up into yet another variety of other cells some of whom either have no names per se or simply new "given names" from Usama bin Laden, himself. In short, pinpointing culprits for any long periods of time is next to impossible due to flexibilities in their operational planning, intelligence and, terrorist methodologies or works. Here's the short list:
Pakistani-run camps near Miranshah (Afghan-Pakistan border town);
Harkatul Ansar (aka) HUA; and,
Jamiatul Mujahideen (250 soldiers+).;
(unkown name: Bangladesh, India-based Islamic militant group);
International Islamic Front For Jihad Against Jews & Crusaders;
al-Gama'a al-Islamiya;
Egyptian Islamic Jihad;
Aden-Abyan Islamic Army;
Gama'at al-Islamiya;
Harakat Ul-Mujahidin;
al-Qa'ida (aka) al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda's fighter wing (aka) 055 Brigade;
Islamic Army;
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders;
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places;
Usama Bin Laden Network;
Usama Bin Laden Organization;
The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites;
Islamic Salvation Foundation;
Some of Usama bin Laden's terrorist camp names are: Salman Farsi, Badar 1, Badar 2 and, Saiful Islam, inside Afghanistan and, more.
Description: Established by Usama bin Ladin around 1990 to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion. He through the direction of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union. His current goal is to "re-establish the Muslim State" throughout the World. He works with allied militant Islamic-extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and remove Westerners from Muslim countries. Usama's issued statement under banner of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against The Jews and Crusaders" in February 1998, said in short that, "it is the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens, civilian or military, and their allies everywhere in the World".

Global Activities: Primary terrorist training camps are located deep inside Afganistan sub-terrainean bases. One headquarters is in the Kandahar province area. Specifically, Jalalabad and Khost, Afghanistan there, were bombed by over eight (80) cruise missles launched by the United States. His groups conducted the bombings of both U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania on August 7, 1998 which, killed at least 301 persons and injured more than 5,000 others. He claims to have shot down U.S. helicopters and killed U.S. servicemen in Somalia in 1993 and, to have conducted three (3) bombings targeted against the U.S. troop presence in Aden, Yemen in December 1992. He's linked to plans for attempted terrorist operations, include the attempted assassination of the Pope in Manila, Phillipines in late 1994 with simultaneous bombings of the U.S. and Israeli Embassies in Manila and other Asian capitals in late 1994, the mid-air bombing of a dozen U.S. trans-Pacific flights in 1995 and, a plan to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines in early 1995. Usama bin Laden, continues to train, provide finance and, provide logistic support to his terrorist groups that support his goals spelled out in his fatwahs or holy orders issued which serves to be his Islamic mis-guided holy ruse.

More groups and camps cover the Globe from the Philippines, Bosnia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe and a host of many other countries throughout the World.

Strength & Size: From several hundred to several thousand members. And, 1.2-million was "Usama bin Laden's estimate". Also serves as the core of a loose umbrella organization that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, including factions of others.

Location & Area of Operation: The U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania underscore the Usama bin Laden, al-Qa'ida global reach. Usama bin Laden and his key lieutenants in Afghanistan maintained some of its primary terrorist training camps and groups there. Aden, Yemen where the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in an attack, has just as tightly a knit group of supporters which is said to be an ideal second or back-up location to that of Afghanistan as a base of operations for Usama bin Laden and his other groups.

Yemeni officials however, have been known to provide sanctuary for other leaders of terrorist organizations by housing them right inside their own palace homes. Such was the case for terrorist, Sheikh Tariq Bin Nasir Bin Abdullah al-Fathli (aka) Tariq al-Fathli.

External Aid: Usama bin Laden, is the Son of a Billionaire Saudi Arabia family and is said to have initially inherited around $300-million dollars which, he may have used as start-up financing of the group known as, al-Qa'ida also maintains money-making businesses, collects donations from like-minded supporters, and illicitly siphons funds from donations to Muslim charitable organizations throughout the World like in the case of the, Islamic Salvation Foundation, et al.

U.S.A., Washington, D. C. - October 23, 2001: The Department Of Defense (aka) D.O.D. has outlined a ten (10) year foreign aerospace intelligence plan with its National Aerospace Intelligence Center (aka) N.A.I.C..
The NAIC is just one (1) of fifteen (15) intelligence production centers. Its primary mission is to be the World leader in Fifth (5th) Dimension Data Dominance. Amongst other missions, it also deals with Foreign Aerospace Intelligence. NAIC diversity of control center percentages is divided up amongst the following four (4) facilities:
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (76%).;
Langley A.F.B., Virginia (11%).;
Wahington, D. C. (8%).; and,
Offutt A.F.B. (5%).
The NAIC plan is set to begin from the year 2001 and last through the end of the year 2010. See, e.g. "DIA Photos", for more information on this website.
The Aeronautical Systems Center (aka) A.S.C. located at, 2196 D Street, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is where the NAIC will be handling its seventy-six percent (76%of mission operations for the United States.
The primary purpose of the NAIC's far-reaching scope for what it calls, 5th Dimension Data Dominance, is to acquire, collect, analyze, produce, and disseminate the following:
(1) Foreign Aerospace Intelligence using Scientific and Technical (S&T) intelligence information methods.;
(2) Conduct an integrated analysis program.;
(3) Operate an S&T intelligence data handling system.;
(4) Collaborate with other organizations, i.e. C.I.A., N.S.A. and N.R.O., etc., to improve the collection, acquisition, and utilization of foreign technology and intelligence.; and,
(5) Develop and maintain the highest attainable level of knowledge concerning foreign aerospace technology, capabilities, and limitations.
Displayed below, is just one (1) of many outlines of NAIC studies:
The V/L Task Force

Richard "Dick" Ledesma affiliated with the DDTSE&E/T&E, has chartered the Vulnerability/Lethality Task Force (aka) V/L Task Force to develop a roadmap to include, the following:

(1) Identification of resources, analytical tools and shortcomings of existing models.; and,

(2) Start the efforts on NRC's recommendations.

Specifically, recommendations 4 g., 4 i., 10 a. and, 10 d. are being considered which, are:

Recommendation 4 g.: Fund the JTCG/AS and JLF to assure the completeness of data on the vulnerabilities of on-board ordnance.;

Recommendation 4 i.: Emphasize continuing efforts by the F-22 SPO and JTCTG/AS to develop improved methodologies for reducing flight crew vulnerability.;

Recommendation 10 a.: Validate and accredit formally, by the Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Aircraft Survivability and the Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Munitions Effectiveness, the vulnerability assessment models used by the Air Force and other services."; and,

Recommendation 10 d.: Focus on ways to understand fully the response of F-22 composite materials to ballistic damage, and develop and exercise analysis tools that can handle large scale damage effects.

The "Vision Statement" (See Below) emphasizes a fresh look at all V/L analytical tools used by DoD/Industry to assess V/L of airborne platforms and to examine the generic applicability of the tools to other platforms.

Mr. Ledesma emphasized that the task force should look beyond F-22 and address issues with strategic implications that may affect future acquisitions, e.g. JAST, F-18, Comanche, etc.. Furthermore, Ledesma has encouraged all participants to work closely together to the common goal, beyond the existing organizational stovepipe interests.

The chartered members of the Task Force are: JTCG/AS, JTCG/ME, TILV, DTSE&E and DOT&E.

The proposed Vision Statement and the Mission statement for the Task Force are:

(1) Vision Statement: The vulnerability/lethality community is committed to use all available resources of the Department of Defense (DoD) to identify shortfalls with the present tools used to assess the vulnerability/lethality of weapon systems and platforms upon which the D.O.D.'s Warfighter depends.; and,

(2) Mission Statement: Another DOD Task Force will be formed to identify the resources (analytical tools, databases and facilities) and shortfalls of existing vulnerability/lethality hardware, models, and methodologies (i.e., on-board ordnance, flight crew vulnerability) as presented in the National Research Council (aka) N.R.C. report on "Live Fire Testing of F-22", to update and improve these analytic tools for use by both government and industry in the acquisition decision-making process.


The product of this effort will be a "Roadmap" to correct deficiencies identified in the National Research Center (aka) N.R.C. report.

Task Force Composition

One (1) government representative from each affected agency/activity to serve as POC: JTCG/AS, Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME), the weapons Target Interaction Lethality/Vulnerability (TILV) Service Laboratory Initiative, DTSE&E and DOT&E. Members of the Task Force must be empowered to make recommendations relative to the "Roadmap" to correct the noted deficiencies. The Task Force is empowered to select its own chairman. Any unresolved issues are to be brought to the attention of the Senior Steering Group (SSG) expeditiously.

SSG Composition

One senior government representative from each of the organizations comprising the Task Force plus one senior government representatives from each of the following: USD(A&T)/T&E, TFR and S&TS; DOT&E. DDTSE&E/T&E will chair the SSG.

Joint Modeling and Simulation System (aka) J-MASS

J-MASS is a M&S system which provides a software architecture for the development, execution, and post-processing of simulations. Additionally, it implements a set of standards by providing tools that assist in the development and application of re-usable models and model components. J-MASS was designed specifically to fulfill the simulation architecture role as defined in the emerging standard test processes from within the Air Force T&E and D.O.D. organizations. J-MASS assists and supports the development of Digital System Models (DSMs), and the J-MASS Modeling Library is designed to provide all the functions of the Test Process Archive.

J-MASS provides tools that support the five (5) activities of M&S:

(1) Develop Components;

(2) Assemble Players;

(3) Configure Simulations;

(4) Execute Simulations; and,

(5) Postprocess Results.

Furthermore, J-MASS will provide an object-oriented Modeling Library for the foundation of these tools as well as capture the specifications, designs, plans, T&E data, and other information generated during the weapon system acquisition process. Finally, the Modeling and Simulation Reuse Library, the main repository for components and models, supports the J-MASS community by allowing users to download files into the site's Modeling Library.


This purpose of this mode provides the J-MASS model developer with the capability to develop and maintain model components. Model components which related directly to real-world objects or phenomena can be created by either modifying an existing model component or by developing an entirely new component. Components are developed through visual programming with an object-oriented design tool called the Model Component Development Tool (MCDT).


The purpose of this mode is to permit model developer to fabricate unique simulation models for a given scenario analysis by reusing existing model components. By browsing through the set of previously defined and tested model components, the user can select and assemble them into more complex players which can then be positioned and configured to create a required scenario.


The purpose of this mode is to provide the user with a set of visual programming tools to define and configure data for the simulation. This mode also provides the ability to configure scenario level data and define which components, players, weapon systems, and environment will be utilized. The user can also provide parametric data specific to a model component and review the coverage of player sensors. With the Experiment Manager facility, the user has the capability to set up experiments (series of simulation runs). The user will specify not only initial data with the Experiment Manager, but ranges of data that allow the user to study the model under various conditions.


The purpose of this mode allows the user to execute simulations created earlier. J-MASS provides an event driven, time-synchronized simulation engine for model execution, which includes services for data management, spatial object management, event synchronization and a centralized, non-intrusive data journalization capability. Intermodel communications are handled by features of the simulation engine's data management services and allow for the user specification of all model player interactions.


The purpose of this mode provides the capability to analyze and view simulation results. Standard plotting utilities are provided to graphically represent user-selected simulation results data in two- (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) formats with multiple datasets. A visual playback capability is also provided to allow the user to replay the simulation results in an animated visual, 3-D presentation.


The purpose of this mode provides a repository for user-developed model components to be used in the performance of M&S under J-MASS. The components may be made accessible site-wide as well as program-wide to allow other users and user communities to reuse the components. This process is enhanced through the use of user-friendly browsers to facilitate the location of appropriate components. The purpose of this library is to perform database functions such as concurrency control, transaction management, security access, and versioning.

J-MASS provides a tool set that implements a single threat of functionality through the five M&S activities and the Modeling Library. J-MASS users can customize their installations with commercial tools that conform to POSIX standards. The table below describes these tools and states in which mode they are used:

MCDT (Develop Components) - Object-oriented design tool used to graphically represent the system being modeled.;

Code Generator (Develop Components) - Application that converts the Object-Oriented Design Application (aka) OODA data into compilable source code.;

Team Builder (Configure Simulation) - Builds a runable simulation.;

Configure Player (Configure Simulation) - This X window application edits model attribute values without recompiling simulation.

Configure Experiment (Configure Simulation) - Allows user to specify a range of initial attribute values to be used over many simulations.

Simulation Run-Time (Execute Simulation) - Controls the execution of the user's models, Agent providing event, data, and spatial services.;

Filter/Extract (Post-Process Results) - Selectively converts simulation journal data to form used by post-processing applications.;

GNU Plot & X-Prism (Post-Process (Results) - 2-D and 3-D graph presentation.;

SimView (Post-Process Results) - This X window application allows the user to create animations from simulation journals.;

Batch Import/Export (Modeling Library) - Provide means of importing and exporting data into the J-MASS Modeling Library.

In developing J-MASS, Wright Laboratory, Electronic Warfare Division (aka) WL/AAWA-1, along with other Air Force, Army, and Navy organizations represented by their acquisition, military intelligence, and test communities, formed an Architecture Technical Working Group (aka) ATWG under the auspices of DDT&E.

Under the leadership of the Electronic Warfare Division, the ATWG developed a System/Segment Specification containing eight-hundred and fifty (850) requirements to support the participating organizations and their missions. Following these requirements, J-MASS exploits the technologies of re-use, object-oriented software development, and visual programming to reduce the cost of M&S and, ultimately, weapons system development, as well as ensuring consistent and credible analysis results.

Currently, J-MASS is in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. ASC/XREM is the J-MASS Program Office and McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (aka) M.D.A., is the EMD contractor. The EMD effort is responsible for the developing, packaging, and distribution of the commercial level J-MASS product.

The Electronic Warfare Division, along with its on-site contractor, i.e. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (aka) S.A.I.C., is investigating and developing emerging technologies (tools and models) for the inclusion and improvement of the J-MASS.

Technology areas that are being or have been investigated are:

Object-Oriented, Scientific Visualization, Database Management Systems, Hypermedia, Scientific, Visual, Visual Programization, Real-Time Systems, Open Systems, Visual Programs, Virtual Realiting, Virtual Prototyping, Animation, Virtual Reality, Graphical User Interface (GUI), Distributed Processing, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Graphical User Interface and, Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Expert Systems.

Recent investigations have provided functional J-MASS prototypes of an Infra-Red (IR) Environment, IR Jammer, and Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) Interface.

J-MASS will ultimately help the user reduce M&S costs and ensure consistency and credibility in M&S results. As a J-MASS user, one will be able to re-use model components and weapon system models from the Modeling and Simulation Reuse Library.

Models have been or are currently being developed by the Missile and Space Intelligence Center, National Aerospace Intelligence Center, Aeronautical System Center, and Wright Laboratory Armament Directorate. These models represent missiles, aircraft, and multi-spectral sensors. Some models are of specific weapon systems while some are generic in nature using system specific data. Models, data, and tools can be shared throughout the J-MASS community.


The Susceptibility Model Assessment and Range Test (aka) SMART project, was tasked by the OSD/DTSE&E to accomplish three (3)goals:

(1) Develop and demonstrate a process for improving the credibility of M&S used to support acquisition decisions for airborne weapon systems.;

(2) Test the proposed process on a specific set of existing M&S widely used within the D.O.D. to support system acquisition and development decisions.; and,

(3) Transition a documented V V & A process and support infrastructure to D.O.D. organizations and to maintain and promulgate the methodology to users and developers of other types of M&S.

During the first (1st) year of the project, a Proof of Concept demonstration was completed and documented in a series of reports that provided results of comparisons between test data recorded on Air Force ranges and three simulation models. These M&S are maintained by the JTCG/AS and are used to support COEA tradeoff studies and assessments of survivability by operational units throughout the Department Of Defense (aka) DoD.

The next two (2) years of the project were devoted to:

(1) Identifying, testing, and codifying elements of V&V essential to the credibility of M&S while integrating configuration management into the V&V process.; and,

(2) Establishing an integrated set of information requirements that, taken as a whole, would address the accreditation problem for all DoD M&S. Both of these objectives required the development of a standard way to report V V&A and CM results, so the Accreditation Support Package (ASP) concept was born.

The final two (2) years of the project were devoted to documenting the SMART process, codifying V V&A and CM product standards, broadening their scope of applicability, and applying them to ongoing acquisition and testing programs with current M&S accreditation needs.

The development of an integrated V V&CM process focused on accreditation requirements was a challenging task. Although many D.O.D. components reported performance of V&V activities when SMART was commissioned, few documented the results of their activities. Many technical papers and a few books on V V&A touted widely differing methods focused on specific M&S credibility issues, but a repeatable process aimed at integrating V&V results into a body of evidence that would address D.O.D. accreditation requirements was lacking. SMART's greatest contribution to the D.O.D.-wide M&S credibility debate was the development, testing and documentation of such a process, which simultaneously also afforded enhanced credibility to the M&S that were subjected to it.

Since initiation of the SMART Project, the ultimate goal has been to devise, test, and document a VV&A/CM process for existing M&S that could be extended to others both in existence and under development, and that could be tailored to provide information for support of unique accreditation decision requirements. Within the context of this process, accreditation has always remained the responsibility of the user, and no attempt has been made to replace, usurp, or otherwise undermine this prerogative. V&V results are integrated into the development plan for the model via its in-place CM process, thus establishing an increasing level of credibility as the model continues to develop and mature.

The SMART credibility assessment process integrates the technical results of V&V and CM activities into a documentation product known as the Accreditation Support Package, or ASP. These ASP documents have been produced for the M&S examined by SMART and used by acquisition and testing programs across the D.O.D. to substantiate the use of M&S in their respective efforts. The SMART accreditation support process has been formalized, documented, and distributed throughout the community to encourage its wider use as a standard approach to M&S credibility assessment and maintenance. Aspects of the larger methodology recommended by SMART include:

(1) Process for analysis of intended user applications to develop accreditation requirements, acceptance criteria for M&S, and decision space with respect to suitability.;

(2) V&V process that can be tailored to address only those functional elements critical to user accreditation requirements as well as scaled to fit existing or planned resource limitations.;

(3) Configuration management process that provides mechanisms for inclusion of V&V results into subsequent M&S version releases and maintains the shelf life of those results for application to existing accreditation needs.;

(4) Test data collection process that can be used to plan, conduct, and report range testing activities performed in conjunction with existing programs or via dedicated tests aimed at M&S validation and accreditation requirements.; and,

(5) Specifications and guidelines for production of standardized documentation that is used to report test results, V V&A activities, and M&S support manuals.

In addition to demonstration of V V&A and CM processes, their benefits, and applicability to current and future accreditation requirements, SMART has also developed a support infrastructure that has been used by acquisition programs to investigate and report M&S credibility issues.

In addition to established interfaces with D.O.D. test range facilities and ongoing T&E programs, SMART has assembled a team of V V&A and CM experts with experience in a wide array of current program accreditation requirements. An Accreditation Support Database (ASD) was also implemented to provide a quick-look capability for examining summary V V&A data via on-line applications, and a test data archive (TDA) was implemented to allow M&S users to retrieve and reuse data that was used by SMART to assess credibility of M&S functional elements or areas of engagement and mission analysis models.

Finally, the many lessons learned from SMART V&V, CM, T&E, and accreditation support efforts have been documented along with the process methodology and in training courses to facilitate transfer of this important information to the M&S community within the DoD.

Survivability Information Analysis Center (aka) SURVIAC

The Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center is a D.O.D. Information Analysis Center (IAC) spanning Non-nuclear Survivability and Lethality Issues.

In order to correctly perform a survivability analysis, the models used in the analysis must accurately represent the interactions between the threat, the environment and the target. This requires that the threat, environment, and target be defined accurately.

The JTCG/AS has initiated several programs to develop, enhance, and document the SURVIAC models.

One (1) project, the SMART, will develop a process for verifying, validating, and accrediting models. Most of these projects have been directed towards improving models and few of them have focused on the model input data bases.

The SURVIAC model user community, constantly requests approved and documented data bases to be used in survivability studies.

There is currently no single source that lists available approved data bases. It is left to the individual organizations to either find existing data bases or build their own.

In either case, the organization will have to expend resources resulting in data bases that may not accurately describe the threat, environment, or target.

The creation of a single source document that lists approved data bases and other important data will reduce overall data base creation and maintenance costs for the entire survivability community.


The SURVIAC began operations on December 21, 1984. SURVIAC was formed from the merger of two pre-existing functions--the Combat Data Information Center (CDIC) and the Aircraft Survivability Model Repository (ASMR). The CDIC was a central repository for combat and test data related to weapon system survivability and vulnerability. It was sponsored by the Joint Technical Coordinating Groups for Aircraft Survivability and Munitions Effectiveness and had been in continuous operation since 1970. The Aircraft Survivability Model Repository was established in 1981 to serve as a focal point for models related to aircraft survivability. It was sponsored by the Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Aircraft Survivability. Both the CDIC and ASMR were operated under the technical monitorship of the Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio and were located in Flight Dynamics Laboratory facilities.

SURVIAC Mission and Scope

The purpose of the SURVIAC is to increase the knowledge and productivity of scientists, engineers and analysts engaged in non-nuclear survivability/vulnerability and lethality scientific and engineering programs for the DoD.

The SURVIAC's mission is to perform the functions of a full-service D.O.D. IAC (as described in D.O.D. 3200, 12-E-2, "Centers for Analysis of Scientific and Technical Information") in the vital technical areas of non-nuclear survivability/vulnerability and lethality.

SURVIAC's specific mission is to maintain a technology base of its technical area, provide authoritative responses to user inquiries, provide technical assistance and support to its user community, prepare authoritative technical reference works (i.e., handbooks, data books, state-of-the-art reports, etc.) and perform special tasks and studies.

SURVIAC's technical area is non-nuclear survivability/vulnerability and lethality as they relate to U.S. and foreign aeronautical and surface targets. Nuclear survivability information is provided by the D.O.D. Nuclear Information and Analysis Center (aka) DASAIC.

Non-nuclear threats included within SURVIAC's scope are:

(1) Conventional weapons (i.e., small arms/automatic weapons (SA/AW), AAA, SAMs, air-to-air guns, air-to-air missiles (AAM), field artillery and direct fire weapons (i.e., tanks, TOWs, etc.).;

(2) Directed energy weapons, i.e. laser, millimeter wave and, particle beams.; and,

(3) Chemical/biological weapons. Data requirements in the threat area include, as applicable, acquisition, detection, tracking, launch, fly-out and fuzing characteristics, the counter measures and counter-counter measures employed, and terminal [death] effects.

Both U.S. and foreign aeronautical and surface targets are included within SURVIAC's scope.

The aeronautical targets include fixed and rotary-winged aircraft (manned and un-manned), and missiles.

Surface targets include tanks, trucks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, radar vans, shelters and other similar items.

Data requirements in these areas include, as applicable:

Physical and functional characteristics.;

Design, performance and operational information: acoustic, infrared, optical, electro-optical and radar signatures.;

Combat damage and repair; and system, subsystem and component Probability of Kill given a Hit (aka) Pk/h functions. Initial holdings are concentrated on aeronautical targets with an expanding scope to surface targets.

SURVIAC Organization

A full-time staff of BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC. professional engineers, computer scientists, information specialists and support members operate the SURVIAC.

Assistance to SURVIAC is provided by the SURVICE ENGINEERING COMPANY [not mis-spelled] and, the BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE for system vulnerability and susceptibility matters, respectively.

The extensive staff of Booz-Allen employees located in offices around the world are also available to SURVIAC, as required.

Other sub-contractors and consultants may be hired for specific projects requiring specialized expertise.

To address the survivability concerns of organizations located in the Washington, D.C. area, a SURVIAC Satellite Office is maintained at the Booz-Allen facility in Arlington, Virginia.

SURVIAC Information Operations

The capabilities of the SURVIAC include the technology base of information and data held by and available to the SURVIAC, the physical facilities and equipment used to store, retrieve and process this information and data, and the skilled personnel required to use and analyze them. The technology base consists of data, reports, data bases, models, methodologies, libraries, etc. These are available as computer-resident and computer-retrievable. Much of the information and data are classified and, therefore, stored in secure computer facilities and large, secure vaults. The libraries and equipment are physically located at: Wright-Patterson A.F.B., Ohio, Area B, Building 45.

The computer capabilities of the Aeronautical Systems Division, Information Systems and Technology Center are used for the computerized technology base. SURVIAC maintains four (4) reference libraries with copies of the document available on site and retrievable through computerized operations with key word searches. Also, arrangements have been made with seven (7) other library-type data bases for on-line access to additional specialized information resources related to SURVIAC's technical area. The SURVIAC libraries currently total approximately 11,000 separately retrievable items.

SURVIAC also maintains five (5) major additional numerical databases focusing on combat damage and survivability testing of systems, subsystems and components. A "single-incident" philosophy has been adopted for these databases where each individual data record is backed by a folder which contains all known information relevant to that incident. SURVIAC currently maintains and disseminates to qualified requesters copies of selected survivability models and their documentation. SURVIAC provides configuration control and limited technical support to the survivability and lethality communities for these models.

SURVIAC Services & Products

SURVIAC provides the full range of services inherent to D.O.D. IAC operations including response to bibliographic and technical inquiries and referrals to other centers or organizations when appropriate.

SURVIAC has also hosted several workshops and offers training on the SURVIAC models.

Special tasks, funded by the requesting organization, are conducted consistent with the SURVIAC charter and technical area.

The full range of IAC products such as handbooks, data books, state-of-the-art reports, critical reviews and technology assessments, etc., will be provided. A critical review has been produced and the first data book is in publication. Another data book, a handbook and, SOAR are also being prepared for publication. Introductory materials are produced and distributed to provide an overview of survivability and lethality, and present the resources and services available through SURVIAC. SURVIAC's Brochure, Current Awareness Bulletin, capabilities video, and the SURVIAC Model and Product Guides introduce the goals, resources, and services that are available through the Center.

Technical Inquiries are handled by SURVIAC's technical experts using the Center's resources to provide needed information on a timely basis.

SURVIAC responds to over 1,000 user inquiries a year on a variety of subjects such as the following, as a brief example:

(1) Combat damage and attrition.;

(2) Aircraft and ground system signature data.;

(3) Laser and microwave effects.;

(4) System survivability, vulnerability, and susceptibility issues.;

(5) Hypervelocity kill mechanisms and test facilities.; and,

(6) Aircraft battle damage repair.

Information resources are maintained in computerized databases, in original form, and in computer-indexed reference libraries. SURVIAC's library holdings include more than 15,000 documents developed through an aggressive continuing acquisition and review process.

Special studies and routine reviews of literature applicable to the survivability and lethality community contribute to the library's continued expansion.

In addition, SURVIAC personnel access other existing databases, such as the Defense Technical Information Center holdings through the Defense RDT&E On-Line System (DROLS), the NASA Scientific and Technical Information Library, Lessons Learned Program, and the Chemical Defense Database, to name just a few. SURVIAC's major reference libraries include:

(1) Survivability/Vulnerability Reference Reports, Studies, Analysis, and Raw Data Laser Reference Library: Test, R&D, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).;

(2) Aircraft Battle Damage Repair (ABDR) Library: Reports and Data on ABDR Vehicle Signatures Reference Library.; and,

(3) Reports and Data on Vehicle Signatures Combat Evaluation Library: Reports, Studies, and Analyses from U.S. Army Experience in Southeast Asia Database Services.

The Center has developed specialized databases storing information not otherwise readily available.

SURVIAC databases contain thousands of items spanning detailed combat incidents, battle damage repair information, and sophisticated system and subsystem test data. Additions continually keep pace with community needs. The major databases maintained by SURVIAC include:

ACFTDAB: Southeast Asia Fixed-Wing Aircraft.;

HELODAB: Southeast Asia Rotary-Wing Aircraft.;

GNDVEHSEADB: Southeast Asia Ground Vehicle.;

LASERDAB: Laser Shots Against a Variety of Materials.;

RAM TEAM: (Rapid Area Maintenance Team Database) Yom Kippur Arab-Israeli Tank and Personnel Carrier.;

Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Just Cause Battle Damage Repair from 1989 Panama Incident.; and,

Pk/h: Matrix Critical Component and Supporting Test Data Requirements.

Matrix Modeling Services

SURVIAC is a focal point for distribution of and expert advice on the most widely-used, up-to-date, and accepted survivability and lethality models. SURVIAC maintains and disseminates model code and documentation, provides technical advice regarding their use, and conducts workshops on their application and operation.

The Center is also the clearinghouse for changes and updates to the models. The SURVIAC holdings include:

AASPEM - Air-to-Air System Performance Evaluation Model - Air Combat Analysis Model, Evaluates Aircraft and Weapon Systems.;

ALARM 87 - Advanced Low Altitude Radar Model - Represents Radar in Search or Track Mode.;

BLUEMAX II - Aircraft Flight Path Generator.;

COVART II - Computation of Vulnerable Areas/Repair Times - Determines Vulnerable Areas and Repair Effort.;

ESAMS - Enhanced Surface-to-Air Missile Engagement Model - Surface-to-Air Survivability/Vulnerability Assessments.;

FASTGEN 3 - Target Geometric Description - Methodology to Generate Shotline Information.;

HELIPAC - Helicopter Piloted Combat Model - Helicopter Version of PACAM 8 (See Below).;

IMARS - Integrated Missile and Radar Simulation - Surface-to-Air Missile Model.;

LTM 3.0 (Laser Threat Model) - Ground Laser Weapons against Dynamic Airborne Targets.;

PACAM 8 - Piloted Air Combat Analysis Model - Provides Weapon Performance Data in Air-to-Air Combat.;

P001A Anti-Aircraft Artillery Simulation - Computes Single Shot Probability of a Kill of a Target Aircraft.;

RADGUNS Simulates One-on-One Engagement between Aircraft and Radar Directed Anti-Aircraft Artillery.;

SCAN Target Vulnerability Model - Evaluates Effects of Fragmentation Warhead Missiles.; and,

TRAP Trajectory Analysis Program - Detailed Air-to-Air Missile Model (Available Soon).

Products are made available as a result of specific projects and special studies, and provide new sources of information and methodologies for the D.O.D. survivability/lethality communities. Products currently available include:

A Critical Review of Graphite Epoxy Laser Damage.;

Advanced Materials for Enhanced Survivability (state-of-the-art report).;

ABDR Directory/ABDR Library.;

Aircraft Engine Analysts Reference Manual (ARM) (nine-volume set).;

Aircraft Survivability (video).;

An Overview of Laser-Induced Eye Effects.;

An Overview of Laser Technology and Applications.;

Army Survivability Information Resource Database.;

Battle Damage Repair - A Survey of Actual Combat Experience (three-volume set).;

Battle Damage Repair of Composite Structures (video).;

Comparative Close Air Support Vulnerability Assessment Study (multi-volume set).;

Compendium of References for Non-nuclear Aircraft Survivability.;

DOD Aircraft Joint Live Fire Test Program (three-video set).;

Gas Explosion suppression Agent Investigation proceedings of the 7th DOD Conference on DEW [Directed Energy Weapons] Vulnerability/Survivability and Effects (multi-volume set) Note: 5th and 6th also available.;

Threat Effects in Aircraft Combat Survivability (video).; and,

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Survivability Compendium


The objective of VALIDATE is to improve the fidelity and the credibility of the analysis tools which are used by all the services for vulnerability and lethality assessments in support of weapon system design, test and evaluation. Detailed goals include verification and validation of Joint Service analysis methodologies, application of physics based methods such as hydrocode and finite element methods to vulnerability assessment techniques, improvement of these methodologies for credible assessment of vehicle vulnerability and prediction of test results, and demonstration of these improvements by comparison with results from the Joint Live Fire test progam (JLF).

Specific Fiscal Year 1996 objectives were:

(1) Develop a detailed program master plan by adapting the verification and validation process developed by the SMART project to vulnerability models and simulations, and coordinate the plan with other ongoing and planned efforts.;

(2) Initiate the development of verification and validation documentation for the COVART and FASTGEN models.;

(3) Institute a structured configuration management process for COVART and FASTGEN.;

(4) Perform an analysis of damage mechanism criticality to prioritize methodology improvement tasking.; and,

(5) Conduct a pilot feasibility study for the use of advanced "physics based" methods, such as hydrocodes, to assess their applicability to air vehicle [UAV] vulnerability analysis. The results of this feasibility study will determine the scope of effort for advanced code applications in the outyears, which will be incorporated into the program master plan.

At the end of the first (1st) year's effort, a decision point in the program will have been reached. The Feasibility Study will have established the risks and costs associated with applying advanced physics methods to vulnerability analysis. The Damage Mechanism Criticality Study and the initial V&V work accomplished on the vulnerability analysis tools will have established the risks associated with applying the V&V processes developed for susceptibility models to vulnerability M&S.

At this point a decision will be made whether to: (1) Terminate the program, (2) Terminate the advanced physics part of the program and continue only with vulnerability model V&V, or (3) Continue the program according to the master plan developed during the first (1st) year.


Aircraft vulnerability is a major factor in overall aircraft survivability. In fact, vulnerability modeling is used directly to support COEAs, design trade studies, specification development, live fire testing, and ensuring specification compliance throughout the system acquisition cycle.

Even though the trend is toward "commercial practices" in defense systems acquisition, due to the unique requirements of combat aircraft vulnerability it is anticipated that vulnerability specifications will still be required for military aircraft programs, and those specifications are derived and evaluated using models and simulations.

Vulnerability analysis codes have been integrated with computer aided design (CAD) packages by all major airframe designers. Consequently, these codes have major impact on air weapon system design, in all the services.

Therefore, it is imperative that decision makers have the utmost confidence in the estimates provided by vulnerability models. A verification and validation process provides the basis necessary to establish that confidence; however, current vulnerability models are not verified or validated in any systematic way.

The resulting lack of confidence impairs the ability of vulnerability modeling to impact decisions at critical acquisition decision points. This results in the potential for vulnerability features wrongly being excluded from air weapon systems to save weight and cost. To ensure that vulnerability models can influence aircraft acquisition decisions a systematic verification and validation process must be undertaken.

The Susceptibility Model Assessment and Range Test (SMART), funded by OUSD (A&T) DTSE&E, has developed a M&S credibility assessment process which is in use by a number of system acquisition programs to support M&S accreditation requirements.

The SMART process converts the technical results of verification, validation and configuration management activities into a documentation product known as the Accreditation Support Package (ASP). This document may be used by acquisition and testing programs across D.O.D. to substantiate the use of M&S in major acquisition and testing decisions.

The verification sections of the ASP document the correctness of M&S software with respect to design criteria, allowing decision makers to determine the applicability of the model's algorithms to their analytical or testing requirements. The validation sections of the ASP document the results of comparisons of M&S predictions with empirical testing, allowing decision makers to assess the confidence that can be placed in M&S predictions.

The configuration management sections of the ASP document the degree to which M&S development is controlled and managed, allowing decision makers to assess the "shelf life" of analytical results taken from M&S.

Taken as whole, the SMART ASP provides a high level of confidence in the analysis of phenomena affecting air vehicle susceptibility. However, the SMART program has not addressed the vulnerability aspects of survivability modeling.

To guarantee full flexibility in estimates and to provide realistic test predictions vulnerability models need to be based on physical principles.

Current component vulnerability analysis techniques are empirically derived, and so they are not generally applicable to new technologies, and they can only be applied to evaluation of new system design in limited circumstances.

Detailed physics level "first principle" models have not seen great application in the vulnerability analysis methodology for several reasons: in many cases, they are not well enough developed to represent ballistic impacts, they are computer intensive and time consuming to run, and in some instances simply no resources have been available to consider their application.

New model developments are on the horizon, such as the Advanced Joint Effectiveness Model (AJEM), which may accommodate the results of detailed first principle models (and in some cases the models themselves). Some of these techniques may also be readily integrated with existing vulnerability codes. However, this has not been done to date to any great extent.

One of the lessons learned from the SMART project was to allow for funding to improve the models as they are being verified and validated. SMART taught that correcting errors and integrating new enhancements during the V&V process requires extra funding initially, but, saves money in the end.

This project will integrate the elements of a systematic and proven V V&A process for both existing and developmental models with the development of first principle vulnerability analysis methods, and validate the resulting M&S using ballistic test data obtained from all the services from a number of ongoing test sources.

These test sources include the Joint Live Fire (JLF) program, Live Fire Testing (LFT) by various acquisition programs, and other sources such as the JTCG/AS, JTCG/ME, the Defense Nuclear Agency (aka) DNA, and the National Laboratories.


Validated vulnerability assessment methodologies are required for all weapon system development programs. In order to support procurement decisions, design tradeoff decisions, specification development and verification, ECP and P3I decisions, live fire testing and advanced concept studies for combat weapon systems, the ability to evaluate the vulnerability of the vehicle in a realistic threat environment is essential.

This is a requirement for all the services for any new procurement or weapon design improvement. This is particularly true for the new generation of aircraft and weapons systems where vulnerability reduction is such an important part of the design. In order to adequately support mandated Live Fire Testing, validated and detailed vulnerability assessment tools which provide realistic predictions of test results are essential.

In "Live Fire Testing of the F-22", the National Research Council concluded that ". . . significant improvements are needed in several of the tools that complement live fire testing"; that "There is considerable need for expanded efforts over the next several years to improve the databases used in models for conducting vulnerability assessments"; "formal validation and accreditation . . . of (vulnerability) models used by the Air Force and other services is warranted"; and, that the "vulnerability community could make much better use of advanced analytical tools (e.g., finite element analysis) . . .".

Advanced Joint Endgame Model (AJEM) - Encounter Group Software Overview


AJEM is a computer simulation of the terminal conditions that result when a weapon engages an air target. The endgame involves elements of missile flyout and guidance, projectile trajectories, fuzing, and warhead interactions with targets. With appropriate modeling of targets, threat trajectories, and encounter conditions the methodology is not limited to air targets and can be utilized for surface target analysis or to support live fire tests by emulating single or multiple object impacts with specific target structures.

AJEM will allow the User to combine the elements of target modeling, encounter geometries and kinematics, generation of weapon burst positions from proximity or contact fuzing, propagation of damage mechanisms to the target, damage mechanism/target interaction (penetration, fire, blast, etc.), target systems relationships (functionality, redundancies, etc.), and target remaining capability or loss of function to perform lethality and vulnerability analyses. AJEM is structured to contain several options for handling level of complexity versus speed of computation and level of detail known about the targets or threats.

Needed input data is gathered from multiple sources and models (for existing as well as conceptual systems) and are input to and stored in data files. The data can be generated and maintained by respective expert sources (e.g., intelligence agencies, fuze, warhead, and guidance engineers, and vulnerability analysts) for use by analysts desiring to do component studies up to COEA level studies.

Using these databases, an analyst can specify a static, singular trajectory and/or variable, Monte Carlo conditions in order to accomplish a wide range of study objectives. For example, the analyst can vary the terminal flight path in a deterministic pattern to determine how aircraft survivability varies with threat approach aspect. AJEM provides the capability to specify and vary each of the dozens of conditions and simulation options within a study.

Once the study conditions are specified, the analyst can run AJEM in various modes. Runs can be made individually with detailed, time stepped, real-time output describing what is going on during a single encounter, or many thousands of encounters can be run with just a single output, Pk (aka) Potential Kill, for each. Based on study requirements, AJEM could be linked with other models, like ESAMS and RADGUNS, to provide effectiveness evaluations for their engagements or it could be linked to hardware in the loop test facilities to provide endgame effectiveness determinations.

The AJEM analysis utilities allow the analyst to visually display pictures of target and threat models; three-dimensional, variable aspect, views of the engagement; two-dimensional graphs of data (e.g., Pk versus angle-of-attack); and statistics such as average Pk of a missile against a set of targets or average Pk for each target. With the graphical displays (for which hardcopy output can be obtained as well) and associated digital data, the analyst can see what happened during the engagements and can provide input (such as a particular SAM Pk envelope for a conceptual aircraft) to other models used to do mission analysis, COEA support, or for inclusion in a report.

The Encounter Group Software Design Document (SDD), discusses those portions of the AJEM computer model which deal with defining the initial encounter conditions, generating a burst position from internal or external fuze modules, and output data display and analysis requirements. See, e.g. "DIA Photos", for more information on this website.


U.S.A., Washington, D. C. - October 23, 2001: The United States Air Force, Institute for National Security Studies (aka) I.N.S.S., and its published "Occasional Paper" (volumed editions of their own publication) all of which, is primarily sponsored by, the National Security Policy Division, Nuclear and Counter-proliferation Directorate, Headquarters U. S. Air Force (HQ USAF/XONP) and, the Dean of the U.S.A.F. Academy faculty.

Other INSS sponsors currently include: Air Staff Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Directorate (aka) XOI; the Secretary of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment (OSD/NA); the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (incorporating the sponsorship of the Defense Special Weapons Agency and the On-Site Inspection Agency); the Army Environmental Policy Institute; the Plans Directorate of the United States Space Command; and, the Air Force long-range plans directorate (XPXP).

The mission of the INSS is to promote national security research for the Department of Defense (aka) D.O.D. within the military academic community and to support the Air Force national security education program.

One of the authors, i.e. Lieutenant Colonel Roy E. Horton III, for the INSS, Occasional Paper, holds an interesting background:

- Bachelor of Sciences degree in Electrical Engineering.;

- Masters degree in Strategic Intelligence (Originally commissioned into the Air Force through the Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of Southern California, in 1979).;

- Intelligence officer who served as a radar analyst for the National Aerospace Intelligence Center (aka) N.A.I.C. at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.;

- Chief, Command Control and Communications (aka) C3 in the Electronics Group also, a Liaison Officer at Headquarters (aka) HQ Intelligence, United States Air Force - Europe at Ramstein Air Base, Federal Republic of Germany, where he provided critical intelligence support for "must know" operational and developmental programs like the F-117, F-22 and B-2.;

- Defense Intelligence Agency (aka) D.I.A. manager for Scientific and Technical (aka) S&T intelligence products on foreign air defense command and control systems where, he deployed extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East in support of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.;

- Attended the Air Command and Staff College.;

- Served at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in the Intelligence Division in Mons, Belgium where, he was the principal planner for intelligence support to NATO operations in Bosnia.;

- Completed a National Defense Fellowship with the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois from July 1997 to May 1998.;

- Former Commander, 91st Intelligence Squadron located at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland in August 1998.

IRAQ, Basra - September 18, 2001: The Saudi Arabia-based, Joint Task Force South-West Asia said that, British Tornado warplanes bombed an anti-aircraft missile site in southern Iraq on Tuesday, retaliating against Iraqi “hostile activities” against planes patrolling a no-fly zone, according to the U.S. Air Force. The strike targeted a position near Basra, 350-miles south of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
The strikes were in response to Iraq’s hostile activities in the past, part of which was also experienced today. There was no immediate report on damage or immediate Iraqi comment.
For months, Iraq has improved its ability to fire missiles at both U. S. and British aircraft patrolling a no fly zone in southern Iraq. No-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq were established after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Shiite Muslims and Kurdish minorities.
Last week, Iraq said it downed a second (2nd) Unmanned Air Vehicle (aka) UAV, a remote-controlled surveillance air vehicle. See, e.g. "Pegasus Program" below, on this webpage.
United States authorities confirmed the drone’s disappearance but, are still investigating its fate. No description information was provided as to the type of UAV downed.
Iraqi Re-Match Set - Bush vs. Hussein
IRAQ, Tuwaitha - July 30, 2001: Unfriendly and old reminders are coming to a head this year, between Saddam Hussein and this time, George Bush, Jr.. Like an old TV re-run or boxing re-match for these two names once again. The same place (with the exception of a few minor modifications) and perhaps, a new time slot for new action so, stay tuned. Now, here's some of old reminders:

The United States and its air-raid allies targeted Iraqi veternary clinics, hospitals and the like not to mention other strategic IPs. But, why? Perhaps old intelligence data below will shed some light now.

The following is an OCR (optical character recognition) translation of the actual teletype(s) sent to their respective reception centers, listed below.

NOTE: Data relevancy discernment may be performed by reviewing the following back-channel messaging traffics - created but, not produced by field intelligence analysts - focus on highlighted text areas and their specifically routed organizations and locations, prove interesting:




CDSN = LGX736 MCN = 90088/47183 TOR = 900882351




R 292351Z MAR 90









RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC [ Office of Central Intelligence White House (Sub-Level 8) - O.C.I.W.H. ]












R 291505Z MAR 90

FM CDR[ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]USAOPSGP INSCOM ALEX VA //[

(b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]//

TO AIG 9194










SERIAL: IIR 2 201 0629 90.



COUNTRY: (U) IRAQ (IZ);[ (b)(7)(D) ]



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


DOI: (U) 900300.

REQS: (U) G-OSG-1610-19-88; S-OSG-01198; S-UDX-90001.

SOURCE: (S/NF/WN) //2 243 0850//[ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][

(b)(7)(D) ]


TEXT: [ (b)(7)(D) ]



//IPSP: (U) PT 1610; PT 1610; PT 1600//.

//COMS: (U) 141; 144; 144//.


PROJ: (U) 202019.


PREP: (U) 2-10446.

ACQ: (U) ALEXANDRIA, VA (900329).





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Filename: 22010629.92a


CDSN = LGX485 MCN = 92134/40888 TOR = 921342112




R 132113Z MAY 92



RULSJGA/COGARD INTELCOORDCEN WASHINGTON DC [Coast Guard Intelligence Coordination Center, Washington, D.C.]

RHEPAAB/TAC IDHS LANGLEY AFB VA//IDHS// [Air Force Tactical Air Command Intelligence Headquarters, Langley, VA]






RULKQAN/MARCORINTCEN QUANTICO VA [Marine Corps Intelligence Center]



R 121359Z MAY 92

FM CDR[ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]USAFIA INSCOM ALEXANDRIA VA // [

(b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]//














































SERIAL: (U) IIR 2 201 0629 92.






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


DOI: (U) 920000.

REQS: (U) D-TSA-1610-02-90.

SOURCE: //2 243 0834//[ (b)(7)(D) ]






//IPSP: (U) PT 1610//.

//COMSOBJ: (U) 141//.


PROJ: (U) 202019.


PREP: (U) 2-10479.

ACQ: (U) ALEXANDRIA' VA (920501).



 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


SERIAL: (U) IIR 2 340 0258 90.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


DOI: (U) 850000.


[b.1. sec. 1.5.(c)]


TEXT: 1. [b.1. sec. 1.5.(c)]





[b.1. sec 1.5(c)]



X-47, X-47A & X-47B

USA, CA, Edwards A.F.B. - July 30, 2001: The Department of Defense's one of many versions of their "air vehicle" taken from the Pegasus Program recently.

Northrop-Grumman’s X-47 and X-47A versions for the DOD's Pegasus Program is, supposedly only a company-funded demonstrator pictured below and high above the Mojave, California desert region of Edwards Air Force Base and a later version on the tarmack in the third set of two (2) pictures provided below.

Pictured between the X-47 Unmanned Air Vehicle (aka) UAV (below) and the other similar two (2) white-colored UAVs, i.e. X-47A is, a rare photo of the Manned Air Vehicle (aka) MAV, i.e. the X-47B, an entirely different type air vehicle. The X-47B (MAV) pictured on the deck of a naval aircraft carrier, readied for take-off, has a UFO-like appearance (below). Note window and windowless version differences between the manned and unmaned air vehicles below:

X-47 (UAV) Un-manned Air Vehicle over Test Range (above photo)

X-47B (MAV) a UFO-look-alike Manned Air Vehicle getting launched off the deck of a naval aircraft carrier (above photo)

X-47A (UAV) Un-manned Air Vehicle on tarmack (above 2 photos)

These type of aircrafts are referred to as "air vehicles" to be primarily used to demonstrate aerodynamic qualities for many other Manned Air Vehicle (aka) MAV and/or, Un-manned Air Vehicle (aka) UAV of the future Navy and Air Force. Those pictured above, are already suitable for autonomous operation from an aircraft carrier as part of the U.S. Navy's, "risk-reduction workforce" for these new Naval Combat Air Vehicle (aka) NCAV being manufactured by Northrop-Grumman, Integrated Systems Sector (aka) ISS.

Besides "off-shore test range sites" for these and other similar-type looking air vehicles could be facilities in the Mojave desert region's Edwards A.F.B., California dry lake test range area dry, Nellis A.F.B., Nevada test range S-4 site area and, the old (1969) super-secret Trona N.A.S., California test range site far east and across the desert from Edwards AFB which, conduct tests near the Southern California desert town of Trona, California.



Libya's Muammar Gaddafi - U.S. Oil Ultimatum
LIBYA, Tripoli - September 13th, 2001: One of the primary supporters of international terrorism against the West is Libya. And, back into the limelight once again is, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who enlightened the World and the United States with an unfriendly reminder, "U.S. oil company's, oil leases are about to expire in Libya" and if the U.S. wants to renew them for yet another fifteen (15) years, the U.S. must lift its trade ban against Libya. There was a little known about ceremony between Great Britian and Libya a couple of years ago which, lifted trade sanctions between these two countries.
The United States may be concerned over Gaddafi's potential re-sale/re-lease of U.S. oil company's former Libyan-leased oil properties there. The "sell-out" will make instantly way for another third world country to benefit and thereby bolster their economy with which to fund further international terrorism efforts. Afghanistan is interested in the oil deal as are other supporters of international terrorism who offer safe harbor to those groups seeking to undermine Western interests.
Gaddafi has his own Country's new problems threatening him too in what he believes is a C.I.A.-backed group called, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) which, threatens to tear Lybia's best laid plans apart with a new Libyan Civil War strife.
The United States has not been pleased with Great Britain's decision for making the deal they did with Gaddafi in 1999. Britain was handed on a silver platter (so-to-speak) by, Gaddafi, his own two (2) former Libyan intelligence agents responsible for the downing of the PanAm jumbo-jet aircraft over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 which killed 270 people and, in exchange, Britain lifted their old trade ban sanctions with Libya.
The outcome for Britain for these two (2) Libyan intelligence agents - sacrificed by Gaddafi, amounted to only the following justice being done:
In a Scottish court located in, The Netherlands, these two (2), i.e. Lamine Khalifa Fhimah and Abdel-Baset Ali Al-Megrahi, were tried. Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment (which, is under appeal) while, Fhimah was acquitted and set free of all charges.
At the current time however, a British citizen is now actually putting together a "tourist program" with Libya which, probably won't last if the SPLA has anything to say about it to Gaddafi.

Pakistan, Islamabad - September 12th, 2001: Islamic-militant extremists with Pakistan government controller's not only supported but helped to create, the current Afganistan government's Taliban rule for years now.

With the United States as the primary donor and some others, the U.S. has been pumping millions of dollars in supposed "aid" into Pakistan under the ruse of "refugee aid support" for those displaced Afghanis who migrated to Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan War, years ago. Now, whether the refugees actually ever received all the aid sent them or, whether that aid was turned around and sold throughout the World for arms is anyone's guess at this point.

Afghanistan's Taliban government today, controls approximately 70% of its geographic territory. The Taliban's opposing force today is another Islamic militant religious extremist group called, the "Hezb-i Wahdat". The Hezb-i Wahdat happens to be a former ruling Islamic party occupant of Afghanistan which, continues to receive covert support from Iran and occupies the northern region of Afghanistan.

The Taliban government has been permitting Usama bin Laden's Islamic-extremist paramilitary terrorist group the, i.e. "al Qaeda" and, other radical Islamic-extremist terrorist cells "free harbor" and, continuing sanctuary for the sole purpose of furthering it's own beliefs and those of its terrorists-in-taining visitors. In short, Afghanistan is nothing more than "terrorist hot-bed wafare training camps" now nestled in the hills above what used to be bustling cities and homes to millions of Afghani people.

Years ago and during the Soviet's Afghanistan War - Russia's version of our Viet Nam War - the United States sought to undermine Soviet efforts to back the Islamic party they wanted to rule Afghanistan. The U.S. continued their covert support through Iran. And, Iran's splinter groups covertly supported the Islamic Party or, as we knew them by their buzz-word, i.e. Afghan Rebels (aka) the Mujahideen. The U.S. herald these radial extremist Islamic militants across Amercian televison sets as, "Freedom Fighters". But, remember the age old adage of, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" and, "who" were we actually referring to? Today it is well documented that it was none other than Usama bin Laden, himself. There "is" also the distinct possibility that it was the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency who actually created and fostered the Usama bin Laden following of militant Islamic extremists.

Not too far-fetched an idea as much as a little known about C.I.A., Hari Krishna, Domino pizza connection. Long ago, an unidentified female by the name of Barbara (last name unknown) - with excellent Washington, D.C. ties - assisted the United States in a foreign/domestic C.I.A.. operation. Barbara (LNU) was involved in the fetal stage of the Domino's pizza organization. It was "she" who started up the Hari Krishna movement in America for the C.I.A..

Iran as well as other highly secret groups and people indirectly from within the United States, provided covert C.I.A.'s war effort support for the United States, whether they knew it or not!

Some of the players locally were people involved in the heroin trade from Afghanistan like those members of the Brotherhood Of Eternal Love (aka) B.E.L.. These neuvo-riche kids were nothing more than a group of young jet-setting millionaires operating out of Southern California's, Newport Beach area who wanted to spend their millions on Afghani "liquid white" heroin.

Other more prominent persons like H. Ross Perot and other ancilliary companies were also involved with funneling millions upon millions of dollars into the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency effort to overthrow the Soviet Red Army's occupation of the Afghanistan government. In short, the U.S. made it extremely difficult for the Soviets to win their war, much in the same way, the Soviets made it difficult for us to win our war in Vietnam.

In our process of making it impossible for the Russians to take control of Afghanistan, we created a new-type of highly sophisticated military strategist monster, i.e. Usama bin Laden, et al. We established great allies back in the late 70s and early 80s, the likes of which, Usama bin Laden was only one (1) who was hand-picked. A billionaire Saudi Arabian's family member was our man Usama bin Laden who we showed how to float around amongst many other places, South West, Central Asia and the Mid-East.

Years later, George Bush, Sr. was caught in the U.S. Gongressional "Iran-Contra" hearing scandals, directing the National Security Agency (aka) N.S.A. front-man, i.e. U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Oliver North and others on a variety of very dangerous undertakings and one (1) in particular which was, their secret-parallel government called, the Enterprise, from right here in America.

The Enterprise was an intertesting "tool" which was once planned for use in a de facto or de jure bloodless coups that was to take place on American soil.

The erry fact is that, the Enterprise was going on within former President George Bush, Sr.'s Administration, years ago and now we are under the direct control of his son, President George Bush, Jr.. One has to wonder in light of all the current events of monumental proportion disasters which have just occured, whether or not this "Enterprise" is once again, going forward now giving all the radical changes made recently within our Nation's governing authorities by, utilizing the "fear" of global terrorism as its new launching pad.

The Enterprise, was said by then Colonel Oliver North, to be a secret parallel government already operating within the U. S. Government which, was specifically designed to suspend the U.S. Constitution and, take over control of the United States and its citizenry. A bloodless coup was what this devious scheme was, in short. What's sad is, the vast majority of American people never knew anything about until it hit their home television screens during the Ollie North trials but, most people couldn't or didn't understand what it was that almost occured right in their own County a few years ago. In fact, most people today, don't recall anything about this. I'm sure Sam Donaldson the televison news anchorman remembers it very well as do others who watched carefully.

When information about the mere existence of the Enterprise and its associates were revealed to the American public over national televison networks, then all of a sudden the Congressional Hearings and Ollie North's trial went into "secret sessions" of which, American television sets were no longer privy to listen in on. What happened?

In short, the Enterprise sought to re-write the U.S. Constitution by suspending it, takeover the United States with what was referred to as their New World Order group of military leadership under then George Bush, Sr.'s administration. Let's hope that what we're seeing with these terrorist stikes and the many changes taking place with new Presidential directives, proclamations and other measures sanctioned with Congressional approval in United States with regard to the U.S. government's powers of authority are not, the secret up-start and continuation of what the Enterprise sought to do long ago in the U.S..

American housewives and others who paid particularly close attention to the U.S. Congressional Committee's televised trials of Oliver North, years ago, should be able to distinctly remember what was revealed at those trials in addition to the "Enterprise".

The least revealing story was, the funneling of Iran weapons shipments through the funneling conduit ability of the CIA, for our covert support of the Contra rebels in Central America. Central America's "Contra Rebels" was the "diversion storyline" fed to the World while the "real" story remained over in America and Afghanistan with our continued efforts to beef-up our new Islamic monster terrorists to fight the Soviets but, something went haywire. Something went terribly wrong.

Unlike the U.S.-fostered monstrocity creations of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeni and Panama's General Noreiga, the United States was unable to make a pre-emptive strike in an effort to control Usama bin Laden terrorist cell boy's blowback which, is said to have resulted in the recent attack on America.

There exists today, a "self-said" former member of Usama bin Laden’s "al-Qaede", a Morrocan man by the name of, L'Houssaine Kherchtou. Kherchtou was supposedly sent to Nairobi, Kenya in order to be trained as a pilot. The true degree and sophistication (if any) of his pilot training skills are not totally revealed except that it was said he, "only performed some crop-dusting on fields". Today, Kherchtou and his family are safe within the U.S. Government's, Witness Protection Program subsequent to his aid of information and cooperation with the U.S. Government. That specific aid and more, led to the arrest and conviction of the New York World Trade Center bombers which, happened years ago but just recently resulted in the conviction of those caught.

Looking at Afganistan, a country rich in history and tradition, it was once the crossroads of the ancient and medieval worlds. Today however, Afghanistan is suffering a humanitarian crisis unprecedented in its history due to it having been riddled with so many Islamic militant extremist groups backed by so many foreign country's covert support operations that one has to wonder who's really in control of the country of Afghanistan. It's not as simple as dropping a bob on Afganistan to truely rid the World of Islamic-based terrorist cells. One (1) bomb will not solve the problem for the United States and "that" is what the President Bush hinted at recently when he told the Nation that "we are fighting a new war where the enemy hides in the shadows".

Approximately 2.5-million Afghan people are refugees now in Pakistan and Iran, ½-million others are internally displaced and, 1-million or more are at risk of famine. This catastrophe is the result of over twenty (20) years of war and the worst drought in memory. The ruling Taliban regime is doing little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people.

Developments in Afghanistan are spilling over into the states of Central Asia, which are still emerging from seventy (70) years of Soviet rule.

The five (5) Central Asian states, i.e. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan, are threatened by a lucrative opium and heroin trade, financial crisis, refugee migration flows, and the potential rise of Islamic opposition movements. Above all else, these states fear internal economic collapse, which could send them begging to Moscow for economic and security assistance.

The Islamic Republic of Iran harbors three (3) especially deep suspicions of the Taliban:

1. Deep doctrinal differences divide the religious leaderships in the two countries.;

2. A Taliban-led Afghanistan adds to Iran's sense of encirclement by hostile Sunni states following what appears to be their de facto or de jure Mesiah, Usama bin Laden.; and,

3. Taliban's treatment of Shi'ite minorities in Afghanistan arouses alarm in Tehran, Iran.

There are divisional factions which, exist within Iran about whether to engage the Taliban directly in war or, to continue covert support for the Hezb-i-Wahdat (aka) Unity Party, a predominantly Shi'ite umbrella party fighting to overthrow the Taliban today.

Recent border skirmishes between Iran and Afghanistan and the Soviet concern focused at their Tajik-Afghan border, highlights the real potential for an expansion of tensions to a wider, interstate war.

Brief History of Hizb-i Wahdat (aka) Unity Party

In 1988, Iran united eight (8) Shi’a Islamic parties - except for the Harakat-i Islami - into the, Hizb-i Wahdat for Afghanistan.;

In 1993, Hizb-i Wahdat split into factions allied respectively with Jamiat and Hizb.;

In February 1995, Commander Massoud took over Kabul, Afghanistan in an offensive after its ally, Hizb-i Islam, had been defeated by the Taliban.

In January 1996, Iran announced it had once again re-united the same Islamic factions and reconciled them under the rule of President B. Rabbani for Afghanistan.;

Hizb-i Wahdat was use to effectively controlling Central Afghanistan and Hazarajat remained under the control of Hizb-i Wahdat, though initially the Jamiat government and later, the Taliban contested their power in the town of Bamiyan, Afghanistan.

In late August 1998, Hizb-i Wahdat continued its control over the Hazarajat which, was under the Taliban's blockade from both the north and south. Hizb-i Wahdat was pushed northward by the Taliban and became the major military force in northern Afghanistan and also, became the backbone of the resistance force, opposing Taliban government control attempts to capture Mazar-i Sharif.


What Is Carnivore & How Does It Work
CARNIVORE, is just one (1) rudimentary form of domestic data collection system. It is in use by federal authorities today in the United States. Contrary to fanciful mentions and logos it is not even close to being what its represented as that of a "diagnostic tool". It does not "diagnose" anything.
CARNIVORE is a "system" which may be simply controlled by a standard telephone wire modem-control or DSL-type connection in conjunction with a commercially available off-the-shelf P-C computer system which, has installed a specialized application software program designed to specifically identify and record data - from a Internet Service Provider (aka) ISP telephone line - virtual reality e-mail messagings and other communications from off of any type of ISP client's computer (palm-top hand-held, laptop, desktop), cell phone, satellite phone and/or, any other communication device using a telephone transmission and receiver line (via satellite or otherwise) and transmit that recordable data onto a standard off-the-shelf removable disk.
According to the FBI:

"Carnivore is a computer-based system that is designed to allow the FBI, in cooperation with an Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), to comply with court orders requiring the collection of certain information about e-mails or other electronic communications to or from a specific user targeted in an investigation."

FBI explains Codename:

"Carnivore chews all the data on the network, but it only actually eats the information authorized by a court order."


Carnivore's Intercepts

Carnivore is used in two (2) ways: as a "content-wiretap" and a "trap-and-trace/pen-register".

A telephone "content wiretap" is where law enforcement eavesdrops on the suspect’s telephone calls, recording the oral communications on tape. Carnivore can do similar things for Internet communication:

A. Captures all e-mail messages to and from a specific account.; and,

B. Captures all the network traffic to and from a specific user or IP address.

A less invasive style of wiretapping is the telephone "trap-and-trace," where police tracks all the caller IDs of inbound telephone calls. For example, if your child has been kidnapped, the FBI will put a trap and trace on your phone in hopes of discovering the telephone number of the kidnappers.

There is a similar feature known as a "pen-register" that tracks all outbound telephone numbers dialed. If you are a suspected drug dealer, the FBI might perform a virtual stake out where they put a trap-and-trace plus pen-register on your phone in order to discover everyone you call, and everyone who calls you. Similar functionality for the Internet consists of:

A. Captures all the e-mail headers (including e-mail addresses) going to and from an e-mail account, but not the actual contents (or Subject: line).;

B. Lists all the servers (web servers, FTP servers) that the suspect accesses, but don’t capture the content of this communication.;

C. Tracks everyone who accesses a specific web page or FTP file.; and,

D. Tracks all web pages or FTP files that a suspect accesses.

One will notice that the trap-and-trace/pen-register functionality is mostly a subset of the content-wiretap interception. This is because the legal standards are more relaxed. A full content-wiretap can only be authorized by a federal district court judge, and only in cases of clear probable cause when certain crimes have been committed. The purpose of a full content-wiretap is to gather evidence to use during prosecution. In contrast, a trap-and-trace/pen-register can be authorized by lower judges. It is often used during the course of a criminal investigation in order to find out background information. This information is not considered "hard evidence" and may not standard up in court. Instead, it is often simply part of the background investigation.

If the FBI suspects you of a crime for which you are using e-mail, they will do their best to get a court order to grab the full contents. If they cannot do that, they will back off and try to get a court order for all the e-mail addresses of people you correspond with.

Carnivore Internet Communication Interception Ability

Carnivore acts like a "packet sniffer". All Internet traffic is broken down into bundles called "packets". Carnivore eavesdrops on these packets watching them go by, then saves a copy of the packets it is interested in.

It is important to note that Carnivore is a passive wiretap. It does not interfere with communication. Some news reports falsely claim that Carnivore interposes itself into the stream, first grabbing data, then passing it along.

Carnivore Frequency of Use

The FBI claims that Carnivore has been used roughly 25 times leading up to August, 2000. The FBI claims that they used Carnivore only 10% of the time for such court orders: most of the time the ISP complies with the court order using their own facilities. The FBI claims that the majority of cases have been for counter terrorism, though they also mention hacking and drug trafficking.

Carnivore P-C Computer & Configurations

Each Carnivore P-C is likely to vary somewhat. The FBI however, claims that the standard Carnivore P-C configuration looks like this:

One (1) standard - commercial-off-the-shelf ( COTS ) - personal computer ( P-C ).; MICROSOFT Windows NT, Windows 2000 or, Windows XP Pro type Operating System software package.; 128-MB ( megabyte ) RAM memory module.; INTEL Pentium III CPU ( central processing unit ) chip.; Minimum of between 4 to 18-GB ( gigabytes ) hard-disk drive free-space available.; An IOMEGA Jazz ( 2-GB ) removable storage media disk drive where the seized evidence will be written to.; Software written in C++.; P-C operating system software set up with no TCP/IP stack ( an anti-hacking web measure ).; Hardware authentication device used to control access to the P-C's operating system software ( prevents ISP personnel from accessing the P-C without leaving visible signs of damage ).; A "network isolation device", which is probably a Shomiti or NetOptics tap ( prevents the P-C from transmitting even if a web hacker were able to break in somehow ).; Another commercially available off-the-shelf type communications software ( perhaps the Carnivore P-C is written with C++ plug-ins to the EtherPeek program ).; Optionally available dial-in modem ports.

NOTETypical FBI procedure is to have their agent come in on a daily basis to exchange the removable Jazz disk with a fresh replacement.

Carnivore Controversy

People are worried about the privacy implications of Carnivore. There are three (3) main concerns:

1. How (exactly) Carnivore works, and whether there are bugs that lead to privacy violations.;

2. How Carnivore can be misused.; and,

3. The privacy debate of wiretaps in general, and the changing rules of the Internet in particular.

Carnivore vs. 4th Amendment

The Fourth (4th) Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Carnivore requires a warrant to be issued given "probable cause" clearly specifying who the suspect is (e.g. e-mail address), what lines will be tapped, and what kind of information is being seized (e.g. e-mails). Furthermore, wiretaps like Carnivore are usually held to a higher standard. A warrant for the contents of your e-mail can only be issued by a Federal District judge or higher, whereas normal search warrants can be authorized by any judge.

For The Paranoid

At least for now, the government considers tapping your e-mail a serious thing and curtails most of the FBI’s ability to read it. The National Security Agenncy (aka) N.S.A. may coordinate with the Great Britain to monitor your e-mail (such as with the rumored ECHELON project) but during peacetime the FBI probably doesn't. That is not to say that any other domestic intelligence collection service branch for the government, does not.

Does Carnivore retrieve e-mail from unintended targets?

There is a huge controversy over this issue because the FBI refuses to disclose how Carnivore works (see below). It is technically possible to write a system in a robust manner that won’t capture data from innocent people. However, industry practice has been to take short-cuts in sniffing devices. If the FBI follows industry practice, then there are several cases whereby they may capture unintended data a small percentage of the time.

A spokesman from the EFF has made the claim that Carnivore cannot sniff e-mail for only one person out of a network stream containing thousands of e-mail. There claim is that even experts in AI (Artificial Intelligence) would not be able to build such a system. This spokesman was thinking of the program from the wrong perspective. Carnivore isn’t a dumb pattern matcher, but a protocol decoder. This means that instead of blinding searching the entire e-mail content for a specific e-mail address, Carnivore carefully follows the e-mail transfer protocols and only examine specific fields. The blind content searching would indeed be impossible. See the explanation below on SMTP for more info.

Does Carnivore do "content-searching" to sniff e-mails that contain trigger-words like "plutonium", etc.?

No, content-search type technology systems may typically be controlled by, other government agencies. Carnivore only looks at e-mail addresses within the "FROM:" or "TO:" fields. See the next question for a more complete answer.

Is Carnivore a network of black-boxes deployed throughout the Internet?

Or, Is Carnivore an unrestrained wiretap of the entire Internet?

No. This type of widespread monitoring is not allowed by law.

To install a Carnivore box, the FBI must have a court order specifying exactly what is to be monitored (e.g. email contents), for exactly whom monitoring will take place (e.g. email address), and is limited for how long the box may be in place. Furthermore, the ISP does not have to accept a Carnivore box if they can satisfy the search warrant using their own means. Carnivore is only used when the ISP cannot satisfy the search warrant.

The FBI currently - as of August 2000 - has roughly only twenty (20) Carnivore boxes. These boxes are stored in Quantico, Virginia. They are only used in specific cases under court order. The courts don’t allow any one box to be in place for more than a month or two. Furthermore, these boxes are rarely placed on ISP backbones, but usually close to the servers they are designed to monitor.

Just For The Paranoid

Carnivore's answer is not a satisfactory answer for paranoids who believe that government does not follow its own laws, so let me phrase it another way: if the government is doing widespread monitoring (such as the rumored Echelon program), it isn’t doing it with Carnivore. Carnivore is not made for widespread monitoring, and is instead designed for only "surgical" wiretaps. Carnivore is widely publicized and many ISP engineers have direct experience with Carnivore (and know where the boxes are placed); Echelon is much more secretive. In other words, the government may have black-boxes deployed throughout the network, but they aren’t Carnivore black-boxes.

E-Mail Corruptions or Misrepresentations

A problem with Carnivore is that it doesn’t see the original email, but a copy as it flows by on the wire. Email is fragmented into packets. It is possible that Carnivore will miss packets, or accidentally collected unrelated packets as being part of an e-mail message.

However, Carnivore can detect these problems and clearly mark them. Rather than capturing the email messages itself, it instead captures the raw packets that transported the email. These packets have "checksums" and "sequence numbers" to guard against corruption. Therefore, if Carnivore misses a packet that was in the middle of an email message, this hole is clearly marked within the packet.

Therefore, while Carnivore can certainly miss packets or capture too many packets, it will clearly indicate these problems and not misrepresent the e-mail.

Is Carnivore permanently located at the ISP ?

No. It is unlikely to be in place for more than a month. There are strict government regulations on the use of wiretaps; they most be renewed every month. If they are making forward progress, then they stop because the evidence is sufficient to convict. If they aren’t discovering anything, they are removed as being useless. Either way, they don’t last long.

The FBI claims that they longest a Carnivore unit has been in place was 45 days.

FBI Source Code - Not Released

The FBI makes the following justifications as to why they don’t release source code:

They say that hackers will find ways around it.

They claim that part of the code is from commercially licensed (i.e. they are contractually forbidden from releasing it).

United States Code, Title 18 Section 2512, prohibits possession and/or distribution of devices designed to surreptitiously eavesdrop on other people’s communications.

Industry Experts Don't Buy F.B.I. Arguments

Hackers already know how to find ways around Carnivore (e.g. PGP, anonymous remailers, anonymizing services, etc.). Experts think the real reason is that the code has not gone through a security audit and that hackers can easily attack Carnivore and bring it down. Experts believe that the only way to harden code against hacker attacks is to open it up to peer review.

The fact that key portions are licensed from commercial vendors rather than created by the FBI demonstrates that the FBI does not know how to create such code in the first place. This hints at severe weaknesses within the program that can lead to privacy violations (such as using the same short-cuts prevalent in network sniffers).

Sniffers and network monitoring products are pervasive throughout the industry. Carnivore is less capable than many programs people already have installed on their desktops. Carnivore would indeed be a useful email backup tool.

The FBI makes the statement in their RFP: "The Department recognizes that the Carnivore system is subject to certain inherent design limitations that preclude its use in certain situations. Those limitations will be identified to the Contractor [reviewing the system], but for obvious reasons will not be made public." Experts don’t understand what obvious reasons the FBI could be talking about.

Carnivore - Performance Disclosures

The FBI claims that it has been forthcoming on basic details of the program. Many experts disagree, blaming the FBI for creating an environment of fear and mistrust.

Even though the FBI cannot disclose the source code for Carnivore, it could disclose through the National Testing Standards Laboratory ( NTSL ) test running Carnivore through a series of tests at their independent labs but, more specifically through all permutations (e-mail content, e-mail headers, IP packets, RADIUS logon, etc.) and disclose the evidence gathered along with original tracefiles. This would clearly demonstrate the capabilities of Carnivore without exposing the advanced details that they want to keep secret.

Carnivore's False-Positive Arrests

Yes, easily (you can do this yourself). You can simply reconfigure your own email system to use somebody else’s email address. This won’t allow you to read their email, but will certainly allow you to impersonate them when sending email out.

Another common problem is through the use of "Trojan Horses". This technique, allows for a hacker to not only forge an e-mail, but to make it come from that person’s IP address as well. Currently, this fools the FBI as well as courts ( in a pending legal case, a defendant is accused of posting fraudulent information about a public company to Yahoo message boards; he claims that somebody else controlled his P-C to post that information ).

One may never be able to prove that somebody was actually at the console. A neighbor could be walking over every day while the suspect is at work in order to send/receive e-mails from the computer.

None of this is really important for Carnivore, however. "Probable Cause" must be shown before Carnivore is used to monitor the suspect. Remember that the FBI normally just has the ISP copy the e-mail for them rather than having Carnivore do it. Whatever the source of the e-mails, the defense can still call into question that the e-mails are in fact legitimate for the above reasons.

Carnivore's Ice-Breaker Laws

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, Title III - 1968

Commonly known simply as "Title III"; this law makes wiretapping legal.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act ( ECPA ) - 1986

ECPA (pronounced: ek-pah). This law was designed to clarify how existing wiretap laws apply to cyberspace, but at the same time sets boundaries on how much the government can invade our on-line privacy.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - 1986

Makes breaking into federal computers and trafficking in stolen passwords felonies.

C.A.L.E.A. - 1994

Requires telephone "carriers" (including ISPs) to help with investigations. A court order usually comes in two (2) parts: (1.) Authorizing the FBI to sniff and, (2.) Obligation of the ISP to assist the Government.

Roving Wiretap - 1998

Allows the FBI to tap lots of people’s communication as long as it only keeps records of the suspect’s communications. In other words, Carnivore can be placed on a backbone that listens to thousands of people’s e-mails as long as it only remembers e-mails for the specific suspect.

Pen-Registers and Trap-'n-Trace

A pen-register is a device the FBI might put on your phone line that records every telephone number you dial. A trap-and-trace is a different kind of device that records the caller-ID of everyone who dials you. Remember the movies when the suspect calls in, and the FBI says "keep him on the line" so they can trace him? That's a trap-and-trace.

These two items are frequently used as a sort of electronic "stake-out". Because they only reveal the numbers called, the date/time, and potentially the length of the call, they aren’t as intrusive into privacy as a full wiretap. Therefore, the legal standards necessary to obtain a court order for them are significantly reduced.

According to the FBI, Carnivore is usually used more often as a pen-register/trap-and-trace style device rather than a full wiretap.

Court Order - Specifics

FBI agents must go to a judge and get them to authorize use of CARNIVORE. The court order specifies:

1. Name of suspect(s).;

2. Specific account information, i.e. exact e-mail address(es).;

3. Nature of crime commission-type suspected.; and,

4. What is going to be tapped (i.e. which wire, etc.).; and,

5. Duration requested for the tap/trap, i.e. time limit example: 1 or 2-month(s).

The judge then authorizes the search warrant. At the same time, the judge will create a court order demanding that the ISP comply with the FBI.

Full content-wiretaps may only be used for certain felonies (e.g. terrorism, drug trafficking, kidnapping). They may only be issued by a Federal District Judge, not any old judge. They may only be granted to FBI agents. They may only be used to gather hard evidence, not for background reconnaissance.

Computer Records - Hearsay Rules

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, business records ( including computer records ) are considered "hearsay" ( and not admissible in court ) because there is no first-hand proof that they are accurate, reliable, or trustworthy. There are exceptions to this rule when you can demonstrate accuracy, reliability, and trustworthiness.

First, the FBI cannot simply capture a single e-mail and claim it as evidence. Instead, Carnivore must be running all the time (for a week, month, etc.). All of the e-mails captured during that time must be maintained. The FBI cannot simply take one e-mail from this set and use it as evidence, they must instead present to the court all e-mails captured during this time. If one e-mail says "let’s bomb the World Trade Center", but the next e-mail says "I was only joking", then the FBI must present both to the defense team.

Second, the captured data must be "authenticated" according to Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The FBI agents that put Carnivore into the ISP and locks it down will need to document everything they did. The FBI cannot simply give Carnivore to an ISP engineer and have them install it, because the ISP engineer is not considered a qualified witness.

Third, Carnivore must meet the "best evidence" rule. ISPs are usually able to create copies of e-mail directly from their servers. These copies have a higher integrity than e-mails sniffed from the wire (Carnivore might miss a packet, and therefore leave a gaping hole in the e-mail). Therefore, the FBI can only use Carnivore when the ISP is not willing or is unable to copy the e-mail from their servers.

Evidence - Chain of Possession

As part of the Rules of Evidence, all evidence must be "sealed" in a tamper-proof manner. Carnivore uses a Jaz drive for this. As soon as the Jazz disk is removed from the machine, it is immediately sealed in a bag, then written on the outside who ( the FBI agent ) sealed it and what date/time. From then on, anybody who opens that seal must likewise sign the form and clearly document what they did with the evidence. The evidence must not be altered ( except in certain cases ).

This is one of the reasons that the FBI cannot put a TCP/IP stack on the box. They cannot risk the defense team using this as an excuse as to why the evidence might be tainted.

CARNIVORE Rules - Law  Of  Minimization

The laws state that the FBI must be very careful to minimize how much it inadvertently eavesdrops on. Agents must be very careful to monitor only the information authorized by the court order, and nothing more. For example, if they are wiretapping the telephone of the father of a family, then if a kid dials-out, they must immediately turn off the recording machines. For telephones, this requires an FBI agent who constantly listens on the line monitoring for such things.

This means that the FBI is not allowed to listen for any e-mails containing the word "plutonium", because it would inadvertently capture messages from innocent people. Instead, they must prove to a judge that they can tap into only the traffic for the specific suspect; i.e. they must give the judge the exact e-mail address they are going to monitor.

FBI agents are very paranoid about this. If extra stuff leaks into their recordings, they must carefully discard it. Also, if a lot of stuff has leaked in, then the defense attorneys will "move to suppress" the evidence claiming proper procedure was not followed. Remember, the FBI has to prove a legitimate reason to the judge in order to get a court order, but also must be careful when they get the evidence that it won’t be thrown out of court. This is especially important because full content-wiretaps are only obtained in order to get hard evidence that will indeed be used in court.

Note that full content-wiretaps have been used in this discussion; trap-and-trace style wiretaps are a little more lenient because they do not record the full contents of a conversation, only the parties doing the conversing.


CARNIVORE - Old / New Technology

Carnivore is often portrayed in the press as something extremely technologically sophisticated and clever. It isn’t. For example, one news article claims that when the FBI unveiled Carnivore, it "astonished industry specialists". It certainly did NOT. It is a well-known fact from even within the computer industrial circles of the lowly technicians at BestBuy and other computer superstore service centers that, there are numerous other products on the commercial off-the-shelf ( COTS ) market which are significantly more advanced than the F.B.I.'s Carnivore program.

There's an author who wrote an e-mail sniffing program identical to Carnivore, nine (9) years ago. Carnivore has a couple of things that are unique to it ( capturing e-mail packets rather than messages, RADIUS monitoring ), but these aren’t necessarily sophisticated.

CARNIVORE / OMNIVORE - Stuffy Nose Issue

The FBI has used Carnivore in a mode they call, OMNIVORE: which, captures all the traffic to and from the specified IP address. (Remember, a court order has to specify exactly who is being monitored, the FBI is outlawed from monitoring everybody). Reportedly, they used the AG Group’s EtherPeek for this purpose. This is one of only a few packet sniffers that can accept an IP address as a capture filter, then write in real time (with no lost packets) directly to the disk.

There are numerous products which fulfill these types of requirements. The easiest is the freeware program known as TCPDUMP, which is available for both Windows and UNIX. If the court order specifies a full capture for the IP address of An EXAMPLE of the command would simply be: tcpdump –w tracefile.tcp host

CARNIVORE Stumped - Defending Against

CARNIVORE - Make Your Own

The popular personal firewall from NetworkICE's, BlackICE Defender, has a feature called "Packet Logging". It will monitor all traffic to and from your own machine and save it directly to disk just like Carnivore. You can use this feature if you think you are under attack ( though there are limits to its admissibility in court ). The popular freeware utility known as "Ethereal" can then be used to display the contents of this data. A great "defense" against any FBI bungled message screw-ups between an ISP's backbone and you or, the IOMEGA Jazz disks.

IP sniffing may also be done in a pen-register/ trap-and-trace mode. Many packet sniffer could be used for this capability. The desired IP address would be specified in a "capture filter", then the "slice/snap" length would be set to 54 bytes. This would capture all the TCP/IP "headers", but not the content. The raw data would be saved live to a file. Again, using TCPDUMP as an EXAMPLE: tcpdump –w tracefile.tcp host –s 54.

However, this may very well be over-stepping the bounds of the law collecting more information than the warrant or court order allows. In order to align it more closely with a traditional pen-register/trap-and-trace, it would need to capture a lot less information. It would monitor the wire and create a record that would appear to contain, the following:

IP address of initiator

IP address of the receiver

Time when conversation started

Duration of conversation

This would require a more complex programming within the system.

RADIUS Triggering

In the case of dial-up connections, the suspect has no fixed IP address. Therefore, Carnivore has to sniff the RADIUS logon/authentication packets in order to discover the IP address in use. This is the probably the only feature unique to Carnivore: the ability to track dialup users.

CARNIVORE - E-mail Sniffing Methodology

The SMTP protocol (the system for exchanging e-mail) might look something like the following.

--220 SMTP server.


--250 Hello [], pleased to meet you


--250 <> … Sender ok

>>>RCPT TO: <>

--250 <>


--354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>

>>>(e-mail message)


<--250 Queued mail for delivery


--221 closing connection

What you are seeing here is an exchange of data between two mail exchangers. One exchanger contacts the other in order to forward e-mail to it. Carnivore listens in on them surreptitiously. They start with a few greetings, and then get down to business. The exchanger that initiated the connection first transmits the "envelope" containing the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO fields, then sends the "message". The message is terminated by a blank line containing a single dot.

The message itself contains "headers" and a "body". These aren’t shown in the diagram. One of the big questions about Carnivore is whether it tracks just the SMTP "envelope", or whether is looks within the RFC822 "body". The following is a sample e-mail message that would be transferred over this connection:

From: "Alice Cooper"

To: "Bob D Graham"

Subject: Shipment

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:51:24 -0700


MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)

Importance: Normal

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

How is the plutonium shipment coming? I need it by Friday.


The logic is quite simple. If the court order specifies the suspect’s e-mail account as". Carnivore triggers when it sees that address in the SMTP envelope, and starts capturing the e-mail message until it sees the end. Some court orders might limit this to only the headers rather than the content. In this case, Carnivore has to stop capturing at the first blank line. Furthermore, Carnivore has to remove the "Subject:" header because that is also considered "content" by the courts.

There are several products on the market that can capture e-mails in a similar fashion. One of the important differences with Carnivore is that it doesn’t record the e-mail messages themselves, but instead captures the raw packets that carry the e-mails. In this fashion, it has a solid history of checksums and TCP sequence numbers that clearly show missing fragments are inadvertently captured fragments. This is extremely important in order to validate the authenticity of the data.

A pen-register/trap-and-trace mode can also be used. The MAIL FROM and RCPT TO addresses can be logged to a file whenever either of them matches the suspect’s address. The log entry would look like:


MAIL FROM address

RCPT TO address

Email message length


In the sample scenarios described by the FBI, the describe cases where they want to track all the websites accessed by the suspect. The way they do that is filter for any packet from the suspect to port 80 ( meaning HTTP ), and record the IP address. This may be complicated by having to parse RADIUS described above.


One of the claims read in the news is that Carnivore does something with HTTP more than monitoring IP addresses of the sites. I think the news reporters were confused, but there are some things the FBI could do with sniffing technology.

One technique would be to do a "trap-and-trace" on a webpage. For example, the FBI could put a sniffing device next to the server hosting this webpage, then monitor everyone who access just this one page on the site. Similar techniques could be used for monitoring users of certain FTP files.

NTTP (Usenet news) can be a little more interesting. The FBI can do trap-and-trace on specific newsgroups. Web-pages are actually fairly well controlled ( little bad stuff ) and innocent people often find themselves unintentionally at web-pages due to search engines. However, Usenet is less regulated and there are areas frequented by persistent cyber-criminals. The various hacking newsgroups come to mind.


There are rumors that Carnivore was used to capture IRC traffic. If the FBI wanted to tune into IRC chatrooms, the could simply use any number of programs that simply log onto the chatrooms and record all the contents. Indeed, the FBI probably records the full contents of the most popular hacker IRC chatrooms. The reason is that this isn’t "wiretapping", it is simply recording data that is publicly visible. You don’t need to be at the ISP to do this, but can monitor chatrooms from anywhere on the net, remotely.

Note that IRC supports generic handles rather than fixed account names. People can ( and often do ) masquerade as others. When the FBI monitors IRC, they want to track it back to the IP address that originated the content.

CARNIVORE - Dropped  Packet Problems

This is a frequent question for sniffers: How much traffic may they suck up before they get overloaded?

This is an important question especially if Carnivore is placed upon an ISP backbone, which often approaches 100-Mbps ( megabytes per second ). The Windows platform which Carnivore is based upon may certainly keep up with this traffic in theory hopwever, Network ICE sells Windows-based gigabit solutions which finds that most Windows-based sniffing software is quite slow. Therefore, for many people that Carnivore is after, the FBI may find itself too slow to be placed on ISP backbones for just everyone.

However, Carnivore is frequently used in a "surgical" manner. This means that if possible, it will only tap into the wire used by the e-mail server (for example). This means that the traffic loads in real-world deployments are extremely small.

CARNIVORE Connection - EtherPeek (Germany)

EtherPeek was certainly used originally for investigative work by the FBI. It probably is what the FBI called, OMNIVORE. They would obtain court orders for all traffic to/from IP addresses and save it directly to evidence files. EtherPeek supports this feature well whereas other commercial sniffers don’t do this as well.

The FBI could be making-up Carnivore as just simple plug-ins or, modifications for EtherPeek. The FBI persistently claims that Carnivore is based upon a commercial sniffer, so this is just suposition. Also, looking at EtherPeek’s plug-ins, they are remarkably similar to Carnivore’s described capabilities ( though not exactly ). The FBI may have picked EtherPeek to grab IP information, then after seeing the new plug-ins appear in their latest version, licensed those plug-in codes from a German-based firm ( AG Group ) directly and exdclusively for the FBI's own use after having them make simple minor modifications.

anti-CARNIVORE - Defenses

There are several ways. The first is to simply encrypt your data and use anonymizing services. If you are sending e-mail that you don’t want other people to read, you should certainly encrypt it.

The second, is via a direct attack on Carnivore. Carnivore is probably susceptible to typical buffer overflow attacks by just sending very large e-mails. Also, one may always change the format of their e-mail address without changing the meaning. This will prevent Carnivore from correctly matching your email address. If you think your dial-up connecting is being sniffed by Carnivore, you can probably forge RADIUS packets in order to convince Carnivore that somebody else is using your IP address, which will cause it to stop monitoring.

FBI's Request For Proposal & SPRINT's Earthlink

On August 24, 2000, the FBI issued a "Request For Proposal" (aka) R.F.P. for "experts" to come in to evaluate Carnivore. Many experts have shied away from this because of the handcuffs placed on them, feeling that the FBI is just looking for a rubber stamp to alleviate the public’s fears that than submitting their system to a full review.

"Questions that have been raised include concern that the FBI's temporary use of the Carnivore system could interfere with the proper functioning of an ISP's network; concern that the system might, when used properly, provide investigators with more information than is authorized by a given court order; and concern that even if the system functions appropriately when properly used, its capabilities give rise to a risk of misuse, leading to improper invasions of privacy."

What this may mean is that, bungling on the FBI’s part caused problems for a major Internet Service Provider, SPRINT and their Earthlink internet software, who is now suing to keep Carnivore off their networks. The government wants to prove that under proper usage, Carnivore won’t cause such problems in the future.

People are worried that Carnivore will capture more information that allowed by the court order. For example, a spokesman for EFF says that even experts in AI ( Artificial Intelligence ) would not be able to figure out how to make Carnivore work properly. The FBI wants to prove their case in face of this criticism.

People are worried that the "powerful" capabilities can be misused in order to invade privacy. Some academics refuse to participate. They believe that the FBI is simply trying to allay the public’s fears without addressing the real concerns. The RFP gives strict limitations on how the product is to be evaluated, and has full control over what the evaluator is allowed to publish as results. The FBI may certainly create a "technical evaluation" which could give Carnivore a clean bill of health while still failing to address any of the major concerns.


Carnivore is often compared to other systems. Below is a brief list describing other data collection digestives:

CARNIVORE  (U.S.-Domestic)  vs.  (Britain-Domestic) R.I.P.

R.I.P. ( Regulatory Investigative Powers ) for Great Britain will mandate black-boxes at all ISPs ( unlike Carnivore, where boxes have to be brought on site for each investigation ). Like Carnivore however, a court order is required, first. The Brits are pushing hard for encryption key recovery as well.


The Soviet Union's S.O.R.M. requires an ISP to forward all traffic to the F.S.B. ( formerly, K.G.B. ). There's no issue with this because the vast majority of ISPs are "run by the Soviet State's directorates". The F.S.B. does not need a warrant for its citizenry and can use the information for whatever reason it wants. The F.S.B. also outlaws encryption ( unless key recovery is used ).

CARNIVORE (U.S.)  vs. (Japan)

The Japanese law requires that "all ISPs keep a trap-and-trace/pen-register style log of all Internet communications" which, their law enforcement can subpoena at any time.

CARNIVORE (U.S.) vs. (British-U.S. Foreign) ECHELON

ECHELON is a global ELINT communications network which knows no boundaries. It is used primarily by both U.S. and British government forces and shared with a few more satellite down-link receiver stations. One machine operating federal security agency authority would be the United States, National Security Agency (aka) N.S.A. in cooperation with the Great Britain, MI-6 intelligence service. See, e.g. "INTELL Photos" and "COSMIC Photos", for more information on this website.

ECHELON isn’t totally related to Carnivore however, it may have an interface or orbiting communication link which might. The FBI and NSA have been successful through dis-information campaigns to give foreigners the impression that they are somehow engaged in turf battles with each other and don’t like each other much. Perhaps on the lower-end side of personal bureaucratic run-ins this may be true. Even most Americans have been led to believe that these federal agencies are somehow stumblebums who are unlikely to share technologies but, that's not exactly true. An ELINT priority interface might be established in order for "measured data" distribution at lower level federal security agencies which might perhaps eliminate some inter-agency boundary disputes when it comes to "identifying" critical or priority data requests.

Lower-level government echelons do not possess mapping abilities to even approach ECHELON with their own job tasking assignment(s), per se. ECHELON operates as a de facto or de jure federal level Executive command control authority where others have no say in its operational assignments, taskings or durations thereof.

There is no proverbial "request" which can be simply submitted from any Country's lower level federal security agency authorities to an ECHELON World Region Chief Of Station. Another decision-making substrate controls ECHELON and "some" of the data may be filtered even more before it is even reaches another Country's lower-level federal security agency authority for use.

While some of this technology is similar in theory, the application of collection technology is different enough so much so that, it may appear to have been easier to write or formulate such systems separately than to try to share the more sensitive information technology base itself.

Future interfacing may actually gain federal security agencies much easier acess to collate and mix additional data relevant to what it's needs are, without other lower level federal security agency authorities becoming privy to higher-level security business production needs.

It may also be a new political way to expand budget definitions without having to reveal classified detail justifications to Congress and its accompanying oversight security detail boards of authority.

Carnivore has nothing to do with ECHELON. ECHELON-CARNIVORE interfacing may provide a more expanded meshing of data collection which might realize a greater database control over monitoring communications overall. An interface between the two - if coupled with a common-link database - might serve to provide for rapid deployment response instituted by lower-level federal security agency authorities however, the direction of information trafficking then becomes an even more burdensome task for both high and low federal security agency levels alike.

The release of certain data might threaten the secure nature by which ECHELON now operates and could most certainly undermine other security interests of its users worldwide.

ECHELON usage is somewhat governed as an intelligence collection actuarial system by its operators setting data priority level requests to determine the relevancy of data importance along with priority of need in sequestoring electronic communication information via e-mail, telephone. facsimile transmission, TELEX and a few other forms, worldwide. That's why it is called, "ECHELON". See, e.g. "INTELL Systems", "INTELL Photos" and "COSMIC Photos", for more information on this website.

CARNIVORE - E-Mail & Cell Phone Surveillance
U.S.A., Washington, D.C. - August 28, 2001: Federal law enforcement officials may be ready to use a controversial surveillance technology to monitor E-Mail and other text messages delivered via wireless devices, such as Cell Phones and Palm-top P-Cs is a fact that has one telecommunications group concerned.

In a letter to Federal Communications Commission (aka) F.C.C. Chairman, i.e. Michael Powell, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (aka) C.T.I.A. warned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (aka) F.B.I. may start using its DCS-1000 surveillance system, originally known as CARNIVORE, to eavesdrop on wireless communications as early as October 2001.

The CTIA fears the FBI might start using the DCS-1000 system because the wireless industry has so far been unable to develop a standard for law enforcement agencies to monitor e-mails sent between handheld devices.

The FCC has set a September 30, 2001 deadline for the wireless industry to submit guideline proposals for use of the DCS-1000 system.

Although agency officials would not comment on the CTIA's letter, a representative said the FCC intends to decide soon whether to extend the deadline.

In the August 15, 2001 letter, the CTIA association vice president and general counsel Michael Altschul wrote: "If the industry is not provided the guidance and time to develop solutions for packet surveillance that intercept only the target's communications, it seems probable that Carnivore, which intercepts all communications in the pathway without the affirmative intervention of the carrier, will be widely implemented."

Privacy advocates, civil libertarians and some lawmakers have criticized Carnivore because they fear the system may be used to snoop on innocent citizens without their knowledge.

The FBI has been using the controversial technology for two years. The Carnivore system, which is installed at Internet service providers, captures "packets" of Internet traffic as they travel through ISP networks. The program monitors millions of mail messages, searching for notes sent by people under investigation.

An FBI representative would not say whether Carnivore has been, or will ever be, used to monitor wireless communications.

Keith Waryas, a wireless analyst with market watcher I.D.C., said that even if federal officials do snoop on wireless e-mails, they're going to be disappointed with what they find.

Although businesses are starting to use wireless networks to send sensitive e-mails, it's still a small audience. Wireless consumers such as cell phone users are even less apt right now to use such modern services as sending wireless e-mails, he said.

Though there has been some movement by criminal enterprises to use the Internet, that same push hasn't happened yet on wireless, Waryas believes.

"I don't think the world will come to a standstill," he said. "I don't think guys running a drug operation on the corner will have a WAP interface (a type of wireless network) for their distributors."

He also pointed out that hackers already have broken into some wireless networks. This week marked the release of a product called AirSnort, which lets hackers intercept some wireless data transmissions.

"When it comes to wireless, you're talking about broadcasting something. My guess is it doesn't take a rocket scientist to intercept those transmissions," Waryas said.

There is a bill before Congress that would require the attorney general and the FBI director to submit a detailed report on the use of surveillance systems, including Carnivore.

CIA Sends Hi-Tech Tsunami Warnings

USA, CA, Menlo Park, and
USA, D.C., Washington - March 1999: The first "publically open" contract between a so-called "private firm" and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.). The private corporation - who's CIA members conceived and funded the private corporation - is known as, "In-Q-Tel Corporation" (aka) formerly, the "In-Q-It Corporation".
SPECIAL NOTE: (In-Q-It Corporation supposedly has no relationship to the "Intuit Corporation", i.e. worldwide manufacturer of Quicken, Quick Books and, TurboTax accounting software. Now, the name "In-Q-It Corporation" was changed in January of 1999 perhaps, due to a similarly sounding company name, i.e. as the Intuit Corporation. Intuit has been for a long time now suspect of being a highly guarded and secret "government partner" to the U. S. Treasury's Department, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) due in large part to Intuit's "intentionally faulty" accounting software is said, by plenty of well-seasoned CPA and Bookeeping experts, to place more money from its consumer/users into the hands of the IRS every year. It's interesting to note that the Intuit Corp. holds a deathgrip on Global marketshares of similar type accounting software with about 85%+ of it all, for business and household financial accounting software package programs. Bill Gates' attempt to purchase Intuit, Corporation, was turned down by his attempted takeover, long ago. Unlike Microsoft - although Bill Gate's and/or his business' relationship with the National Security Agency or NSA has yet to be defined - however, Intuit has curiously gone unscathed without so much as one (1) Anti-Trust action brought against it by the government.
In-Q-Tel is just one of many CIA private-sector business partners which, have not necessarily been uncommon, e.g. Mitre Corporation (Washington, D.C. area), Bell Laboratories -Canada, TRW - Power Thrusting Div. (an old TDRS/KH-11 spy satellite control center in Hawthorne, CA), et al.
The publically revealed partnership between the C.I.A. and In-Q-Tel, has sent another tsunami warning to Japan's Nippon Electric Corporation monopoly and others around the Globe.
There is some doubt and confusion between what the CIA says Q-In-Tel is and what Q-In-Tel says, about itself! The CIA claims on its website that, "Q-In-Tel is a 'non-profit' organization" however, Q-In-Tel states it has had in fact profitability in mind for quite some time. But, what do "you" think? (read below)
The following image is an "EXAMPLE ONLY". See, e.g. "DISCLAIMER NOTICE", below as what the In-Q-Tel logo might appear to resemble:
DISCLAIMER NOTICE: The logo pictured below, belongs to its respective owner(s) and its appearance here does not represent any affiliation with this website.
DISCLAIMER NOTICE: The logo pictured above, belongs to its respective owner(s) and its appearance here does not represent any affiliation with this website.

New CIA Use Of Q-In-Tel Interface Center ( Q.I.C. )

In-Q-Tel is a new non-profit corporation funded by the CIA to seek information technology (IT) solutions to the Agency's most critical needs. A unique venture, it was formed to enable the Agency to have access to emerging and developing information technology in a timely manner. QIC is the interface center that links In-Q-Tel to the Agency [CIA].

QIC's - CIA Function

QIC develops a problem set for In-Q-Tel, partners with In-Q-Tel in the solution acceptance process and manages the Agency's relationship with In-Q-Tel. QIC plans and evaluates the partnership program, protects CIA security and CIA counter-intelligence interests and communicates the QIC/In-Q-Tel venture to the World.

CIA's - QIC Function

The CIA, working in partnership with In-Q-Tel, created the Agency's new found organization, i.e. "QIC". The QIC's goals now, are to be the leading source for commercial, high impact IT solutions for the Agency, and will be herald as the single most important contributor to the Intelligence Community by the year 2001. QIC will create and use the full range of corporate processes needed to manage QIC (aka) the "CIA-In-Q-Tel Partnership" by delivering CIA-accepted IT solutions.

CIA Goals With QIC

Eventually, In-Q-Tel will take on a life funded by the high-technology consumer public. QIC however, works comprehensively and collaboratively with Agency IT specialists, customers, In-Q-Tel experts, Agency managers, the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Technology Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Agency directorates, and Executive Board to develop an annual coordinated and approved critical problem set for In-Q-Tel. QIC, leads Agency participation in the partnership's solution transfer planning, including resources, technology demonstration, and prototype testing and evaluation. At the same time, QIC works with In-Q-Tel to assure that it addresses issues regarding the transfer of IT solutions into the Agency. QIC also works with Agency customers and their managers to create an environment conducive to the implementation and acceptance of partnership solutions and follow-on initiative.

In-Q-Tel Background

On 29 September 1999, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was treated to something different. In many of the nation’s leading newspapers and television news programs a story line had appeared that complimented the Agency for its creativity and openness. The media was drawn to a small corporation in Washington, DC that had just unveiled its existence and the hiring of its first CEO, Gilman Louie. Mr. Louie described the Corporation called, the "In-Q-It Corporation", as having been formed " ensure that the CIA remains at the cutting edge of information technology advances and capabilities." With that statement the Agency launched a new era in how it obtains cutting edge technologies. In early January 2000, the name of the corporation was changed to In-Q-Tel. The origins of the concept that has become In-Q-Tel are traceable to Dr. Ruth David, a former CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology. She and her Deputy Director of the same office, Joanne Isham, were the first senior Agency officials to understand that the information revolution required the CIA to forge new partnerships with the private sector and design a proposal for radical change. The timing of the proposal was fortuitous. The Director of Central Intelligence or DCI, Mr. George Tenet, had just launched his own Strategic Direction Initiative or SDI that included technology as one of its areas for review. The study made a direct link between the Agency’s future technology investments and improving its information gathering and analysis capabilities. By the summer of 1998, the Agency had assembled a few senior Agency staff employees with an entrepreneurial bent and empowered them to take Dr. David’s original concept and flesh it out. Aided by a consulting group and a law firm, they devoted the next four (4) months to making the rounds in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, putting the concept through the wringer. Much of the time was spent listening. Many they met with were often critical of one aspect or another of the concept. But, whether they were venture capitalists, Chief Executive Officers (CEO), Chief Technical Officers (CTO) or congressmen and staffers, they all eagerly immersed themselves in spirited debates that enriched the Agency team and drove the concept in new directions. By the end of 1998, the Agency team reached a point at which the concept seemed about right. Though it had changed considerably from that which had been proposed initially by Dr. David, it remained true to its core principles. It was time to hand the product of the Agency’s work over to someone in the private sector with the experience and passion necessary to start the Corporation. To the delight of the DCI and the Agency team, Mr. Norman Augustine, a former CEO of Lockheed-Martin and four-time recipient of the Department of Defense’s highest civilian award, the Distinguished Service Medal, accepted the challenge. By February 1999, the Corporation was established as a legal entity, and in March it received its first contract from the Agency. In-Q-Tel was in business, charged with accessing information technology (IT) expertise and technology wherever it exists and bringing it to bear on the information management challenges facing the Agency.

In-Q-Tel Creation

As an information-based agency, the CIA must be at the cutting edge of information technology in order to maintain its competitive edge and provide its customers with intelligence that is both timely and relevant. Many times the Agency and the federal government have been the catalysts for technological innovations. Examples of Agency-inspired breakthroughs include the Lockheed Aerospace aircraft designed U-2 and SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft and the CORONA surveillance satellites, while the parent of the Internet was led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (aka) D.A.R.P.A..

By the 1990s, however, especially with the advent of the World Wide Web, it is the commercial market that is setting the pace in IT innovation. And, as is the nature of a market-based economy, the flow of capital and talent has irresistibly moved to the commercial sector, where the prospect of huge profits from initial public offerings and equity-based compensation has become the norm. In contrast to the remarkable transformations taking place in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, the Agency, like many large Cold War era private sector corporations, felt itself being left behind. It was not connected to the creative forces that underpin the digital economy and, of equal importance, many in Silicon Valley knew little about the Agency’s IT needs. The opportunities and challenges posed by the information revolution to the Agency’s core mission areas of clandestine collection and all-source analysis were growing daily. Moreover, the challenges are not merely from foreign countries but also transnational threats.

Faced with these realities, the leadership of the CIA made a critical and strategic decision in early 1998. The Agency’s leadership recognized that the CIA did not, and could not, compete for IT innovation and talent with the same speed and agility that those in the commercial marketplace, whose businesses are driven by "Internet time" and profit, could. The CIA’s mission was intelligence collection and analysis, not IT innovation. The leadership also understood that, in order to extend its reach and access a broad network of IT innovators, the Agency had to step outside of itself and appear not just as a buyer of IT but also as a seller. The CIA had to offer Silicon Valley something of value, a business model that the Valley understood; a model that provides those who joined hands with In-Q-Tel the opportunity to commercialize their innovations. In addition, In-Q-Tel’s partner companies would also gain another valuable asset, access to a set of very difficult CIA problems that could become market drivers. Once the Agency’s leadership crossed these critical decision points, the path that led to In-Q-Tel’s formation was clear.

In-Q-Tel - Close-Up

In-Q-Tel founder, Norm Augustine, established it as an independent non-profit corporation. Its Board of Trustees, which now has ten members, functions as any other board, initially guiding and overseeing the Corporation’s startup activities and setting its strategic direction and policies. The CEO, who was recruited by the Board and reports to them, manages In-Q-Tel. The Corporation has offices in two (2) locations -- Washington, DC and Menlo Park, CA -- and it employs a small professional staff and a smaller group of business and technology consultants. In-Q-Tel’s mission is to foster the development of new and emerging information technologies and pursue research and development (R&D) that produce solutions to some of the most difficult IT problems facing the CIA. To accomplish this, the Corporation will network extensively with those in industry, the venture capital community, academia, and any others who are at the forefront of IT innovation. Through the business relationships that it establishes, In-Q-Tel will create environments for collaboration, product demonstration, prototyping, and evaluation. From these activities will flow the IT solutions that the Agency seeks and, most importantly, the commercial opportunities for product development by its partners. To fulfill its mission, In-Q-Tel has designed itself to be:

Agile to respond, rapidly to Agency needs and commercial imperatives; Problem driven, to link its work to Agency program managers; Solutions focused, to improve the Agency’s capabilities; Team oriented, to bring diverse participation and synergy to projects; Technology aware, to identify, leverage, and integrate existing products and solutions; Output measured, to produce quantifiable results; Innovative, to reach beyond the existing state-of-the-art in IT; and, Over time, self-sustaining, to reduce its reliance on CIA funding.

At its core, In-Q-Tel is designed to operate in the market place on an equal footing with its commercial peers and with the speed and agility that the IT world demands. As an example, it can effect the full range of business transactions common to the industry -- it is venture enabled, can establish joint ventures, fund grants, sponsor open competitions, award sole source contracts, etc. And, because of the many degrees of freedom granted to it by the Agency, In-Q-Tel does not require Agency approval for the business deals it negotiates. As such, In-Q-Tel represents a different approach to government R&D. It moves away from the more traditional government project office model in which the program is managed by the government. Instead, the Agency has invested much of the decisionmaking in the Corporation and, hence, In-Q-Tel will be judged on the outcomes produced -- i.e., the solutions generated -- and not by the many decisions it makes along the way.

In-Q-Tel - IT Space

As with many aspects of the In-Q-Tel venture, the Agency took a different approach in presenting its IT needs to the Corporation. It bounded the types of work that In-Q-Tel would perform -- its IT operating "space" -- by two (2) criteria. In the first instance, it made the decision that In-Q-Tel would initially conduct only unclassified IT work for the Agency. Second, to attract the interests of the private sector, it recognized that In-Q-Tel would principally invest in areas where there was both an Agency need and private sector interest. Whereas in the past, much of the commercial computing world did not focus on those technologies useful to the CIA, the intersection zone between intelligence and private sector IT needs has grown tremendously in recent years. Many of the underlying technologies that are driving the information revolution are now directly applicable to the intelligence business. Examples of commercial applications that also support intelligence functions are:

  • 1. Data warehousing and mining;
  • 2. Knowledge management;
  • 3. Profiling search agents [Search Engines and User search requests];
  • 4. Geographic information systems [Satellite Communication Information Systems];
  • 5. Imagery analysis and pattern recognition;
  • 6. Statistical data analysis tools;
  • 7. Language translation;
  • 8. Targeted information systems;
  • 9. Mobile computing; and,
  • 10. Secure computing.

Information Security or INFOSEC, a critical enabling technology for all intelligence information systems, is now a mainstream area of research and innovation in the commercial world, due in no small part to the exponential growth in Internet e-commerce. Thus, there are a number of commercially available security technologies:

1. Strong encryption;

2. Secure community of interests;

3. Authentication and access control;

4. Auditing and reporting;

5. Data integrity;

6. Digital signatures;

7. Centralized security administration;

8. Remote or traveling users; and,

9. Unitary login.

It is, no doubt, the case that the commercial investments flowing into information security outpace the spending made by the Intelligence Community. Thus, In-Q-Tel will be poised to leverage the investments of others to the benefit of the Agency. Having bounded In-Q-Tel’s IT space with these two (2) criteria -- unclassified work with commercial potential -- the Agency defined a set of strategic problem areas for the Corporation.

These four (4) areas have the added and obvious benefit of spanning the needs of all the Agency’s directorates and, hence, its core business functions of collection and analysis.

1. Information Security: Hardening, and intrusion detection, monitoring and profiling of information use and misuse, and network and data protection.;

2. Use of the Internet: Secure receipt of information, non-observable surfing, authentication, content verification, and hacker resistance.;

3. Distributed Architectures: Methods to interface with custom/legacy systems, mechanisms to allow dissimilar applications to interact, automatic handling of archived data, and connectivity across a wide range of environments.; and,

4. Knowledge Generation: Geospatial and multimedia data fusion or integration and, computer forensics.

Information Technology (IT) In-Q-Tel - CIA Occupancy

It will no doubt raise questions with some who will believe that it or the [CIA] Agency have other motives. It is, therefore, important to highlight what In-Q-Tel is not and what it will not do. First, it is not a front company for the Agency to conduct any activities other than those spelled out in its Articles of Incorporation and its Charter Agreement. As a non-profit -- 501(c)3 -- corporation, it will operate in full compliance with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations and, as with all similar non-profits, its IRS filing will be a matter public record.

In-Q-Tel is openly affiliated with the Agency, as was made obvious to the world during its press rollout on September 29, 1999. Of equal importance, it will not initiate work in areas that lead to solutions that are put into so-called "black boxes" -- that is, innovations that the government subsequently classifies. To do so would undercut In-Q-Tel’s credibility with its business partners to the detriment of the Agency.

Finally, In-Q-Tel is a solutions company, not a product company. Working through its business partners, it will demonstrate solutions to Agency problems but will not generate products for use by Agency components. In-Q-Tel-inspired products will be developed through separate contractual arrangements involving Agency components and other vendors.

In-Q-Tel - Structure & Staffing

Central to the In-Q-Tel business model are speed, agility, market positioning, and leveraging. These attributes, taken together, have helped shape the evolving structure of the Corporation. It is one that intends to emphasize the "virtual" nature of the Corporation while minimizing "brick and mortar" costs -- i.e., it will operate by facilitating data sharing, and decisionmaking via seamless communications using a private network with broadband connectivity to the Agency and its partners, while limiting direct infrastructure investments in laboratories and related facilities by leveraging the facilities of others. To facilitate this intent, the In-Q-Tel Board and CEO decided to hire a small staff composed of people with strong technical and business skills. At present, the Corporation has about ten staff employees and, it is expected that, by the end of the year 2000, the total will number about 30. The CEO is currently designing In-Q-Tel’s management structure, but the parameters he has set for it indicate that it will be very flat and aligned for rapid decision-making.

How In-Q-Tel Works

One of the great leaps of faith the Agency took in this venture was to recognize, early on, that private sector businessmen were better equipped than it was to design the Corporation and create its work program. The Agency’s critical role was to develop the initial concept, help form the best Board possible, give In-Q-Tel a challenging problem set, and then design a contractual vehicle that gave the Corporation the necessary degrees of freedom to design itself and operate in the market place. All of this was accomplished in less than a year, to include the design of In-Q-Tel’s initial work program. In-Q-Tel’s current work program is built on a process of discrete, yet overlapping, elements -- IT roadmapping, IT baselining, and R&D projects.

The underlying philosophy now driving the In-Q-Tel program is to gain an understanding of the many players occupying In-Q-Tel’s IT space -- by roadmap analysis -- and, concurrently, test and validate the performance and utility of existing products and technologies -- by baseline testing -- against current Agency needs. If the test results are successful, the Agency has the option of quickly purchasing the products directly from the vendor. However, in those cases in which there are no existing products or technologies, or where a gap exists between the baseline test results and the Agency’s needs, In-Q-Tel will launch R&D projects. In this way, the Agency obtains near-term solutions through the evaluation of those products considered "best-in-class" and can target its R&D projects more precisely -- that is, to where commercial or other government IT investments are small or nonexistent.

With its first year budget of about $28 million, In-Q-Tel has focused its initial efforts on the IT roadmap and baseline elements of the program. The roadmap project seeks, first, to identify those in industry, government, and academia who occupy the same IT space as In-Q-Tel and, secondarily, to spot existing technologies of potential interest. The results will also help In-Q-Tel leverage the technical advances made by others, assess the overall direction and pace of research, avoid duplicating work done by other government entities, and highlight potential business partners. The roadmap will be updated and refined by In-Q-Tel throughout the life of its work program.

2 Team Incubators & 20 Hi-Tech Firms

These twenty (20) are executing the baseline-testing element of the In-Q-Tel work program. They were selected by an independent review panel of national IT experts convened by In-Q-Tel to evaluate multiple proposals. Each of the two teams is working on one or more incubator concepts derived by In-Q-Tel from the Agency problem set enumerated above. The incubator teams will operate for over a year. As the In-Q-Tel work program grows, it is possible that other baseline incubator teams will be established.

The R&D part of the program, which In-Q-Tel manages, will soon become the core of its activities, with a growing percentage of its funds directed towards a portfolio of research projects. In-Q-Tel is formulating its research thrusts based on the information and test results gathered under the roadmap and baseline work, aided by extensive interactions with the private sector and the Agency. The design of the research projects will be set by In-Q-Tel and will vary to meet the mutual interests of the Agency, In-Q-Tel, and its prospective business partners. As mentioned earlier, In-Q-Tel will draw from a broad range of R&D competition models to attract the business partners it seeks. In some cases, it may assemble teams of companies that each has a necessary part, but not the whole, of the solution In-Q-Tel seeks. In other projects In-Q-Tel might be a co-investor in a fledgling company with another business partner such as a venture capital firm. Or, it could take a more traditional route, using a request for proposal. In essence, In-Q-Tel will use whatever model most efficiently and effectively meets the needs of all parties to a transaction, with a constant eye towards leveraging its resources and solving the Agency’s IT needs.

Common to most or all of the R&D agreements that In-Q-Tel intends to use will be the subject of intellectual property (IP), or more precisely said, the ownership of IP and the allocation of IP generated revenues. In the area of IT R&D, a deal is typically not struck until all of the parties’ IP rights are clearly established. In-Q-Tel’s acceptance within the IT market place depends heavily on its ability to negotiate industry standard IP terms. Recognizing this, the Agency agreement with In-Q-Tel allows it and/or its partners to retain title to the innovations created and freely negotiate the allocation of IP derived revenues. The only major stipulation is that the Agency retain traditional "government purpose rights" to the innovations.

Contract Model - In-Q-Tel

Before the partnership between In-Q-Tel and the Agency became a reality, the Agency had to develop a new contract vehicle that granted the Corporation the degrees of freedom it needed to operate in the market place. Most Agency contracts, including those in R&D, are based on the Federal Acquisition Regulations  or FAR. However, the FAR is often viewed by industry as overly burdensome and inflexible. And, it has been the Department of Defense or D.O.D. experience that smaller companies often will not contract with the government because of the extra costs they would incur to be FAR-compliant. Because the Agency wanted to encourage such companies to work with In-Q-Tel, it took a different approach and designed a non-FAR agreement with the In-Q-Tel Corporation. It also adopted elements from the old internet Godfather, i.e. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA and its model based on "Other Transactions (OT)" authority granted to the DOD by Congress. OT agreements permit authorized government agencies to design R&D agreements outside the FAR.

The hoped for result is to spur greater flexibility and innovation for the government. In addition, it permits well-managed businesses, large and small, to perform R&D for the government, using their existing business practices and procedures. Using a DARPA model OT agreement as a guide, the Agency designed a five-year Charter Agreement that describes the broad framework for its relationship with In-Q-Tel, sets forth general policies, and establishes the terms and conditions that will apply to future contracts. In addition, a short-term funding contract was negotiated that includes In-Q-Tel’s "Description of Work". Together these documents define the metes and bounds of the Agency’s relationship with In-Q-Tel and permit In-Q-Tel to negotiate agreements with its partners, absent most government flow down requirements.

In-Q-Tel - Advancements

The In-Q-Tel venture is one that has challenged the Agency to think creatively and quickly to address the fundamental changes that the information revolution is having on its core business. It responded by setting aside traditional policies and practices in many areas and established a new partnership with industry and academia, based on shared interest and mutual benefit. But, one cannot ignore that this venture involves risk, both for the Agency and In-Q-Tel. From the Agency’s perspective there are three major areas that will require constant attention: managing its relationship with In-Q-Tel, solution transfer, and security.

Perhaps the most important of the three is the first, managing the relationship without stifling In-Q-Tel’s competitive edge. In-Q-Tel is a small independent corporation established to improve the mission performance of a much larger government agency. The imperatives that led to In-Q-Tel have many parallels in industry. In fact, the IT sector is replete with examples of a large corporation seeking to improve its competitiveness by either purchasing a small start-up company or forming a subsidiary. The parent corporation sees in its offspring traits that it no longer possesses -- speed, agility, and expertise. But, for these traits to be realized, the start-up must operate unencumbered from the parent corporation, whose natural tendency is to rein in and control it. Similarly, the Agency will have to restrain its natural inclination to micromanage In-Q-Tel and, instead, allow the Corporation the freedom to prosper. It must have continuous insight into In-Q-Tel’s activities, but must understand that In-Q-Tel is responsible for its own operations, including the design and management of the work program.

Acceptance by Agency components of In-Q-Tel inspired solutions will be the most important measure of success in this venture. It is also likely to be the hardest. While there is every expectation that In-Q-Tel will become commercially successful and seed innovative solutions, if they are not accepted and used by Agency line managers, then the overall venture will be judged a failure. Although In-Q-Tel has a critical role in the solution transfer process, the burden rests with the Agency, since the challenges are as much managerial and cultural as they are technical. The Agency’s Chief Information Officer (CIO), directorate heads, and component directors will all have to work closely with In-Q-Tel to overcome bureaucratic inertia and identify eager recipients of the innovations that the Corporation develops. Agency "product champions" for each In-Q-Tel project should be identified early and should participate fully in its formulation, testing, and evaluation. Incentives should be considered for those Agency components that commit to projects with unique risks or that require extensive personnel commitments. These and other strategies will be employed to ensure that the return on the Agency’s investment in In-Q-Tel translates into measurable improvements in its mission performance.

The open affiliation between the CIA and In-Q-Tel is yet another unique aspect and challenge for this venture. Although the Corporation will be doing only unclassified work for the Agency, the nature of its IT research and its association with a US intelligence agency will undoubtedly attract the interests of foreign persons, some with questionable motives. The obvious security ramifications of this scenario were well considered in the decisionmaking process that led to In-Q-Tel’s formation. It was ultimately decided that the risks are manageable and, in many ways, are similar to those faced by any high-tech company trying to protect its IP and trade secrets. In-Q-Tel and the Agency will be working closely to ensure that the Corporation operates with a high degree of security awareness and support.

In-Q-Tel has a critical role in meeting these three challenges. However, it’s most persistent challenge will be developing and sustaining a reputation as a business that sponsors leading edge research and produces discoveries that can be profitably commercialized. Once it has established a record of accomplishment in these two areas, the high caliber IT talent the Agency hopes to reach through In-Q-Tel will be drawn to the Corporation.

In-Q-Tel Future

Those of us at the Agency who helped to create In-Q-Tel are endlessly optimistic about its prospects for success. The early indicators are all positive. Among them is the caliber of the people who stand behind and lead the Corporation and the initial reaction from industry and the trade press to its formation. In-Q-Tel’s Board of Trustees is at least the equal of any large corporation’s board. They are committed to the Agency’s mission, the new R&D model that In-Q-Tel represents, and have invested much of their time to its formation. The Agency and the nation are in their debt. The Board also recruited an outstanding CEO who brings with him the experiences and contacts of his Silicon Valley base and an established reputation for starting and growing new IT companies.

The favorable press coverage of In-Q-Tel combined with the industry "buzz" engendered by the Board and CEO have brought a flood of inquiries by those interested in doing business with the Corporation. And, most importantly, its work program is already beginning to achieve results that the Agency can use and that its partners can commercialize. Judging by the record to date, the road ahead appears promising. But, In-Q-Tel’s fate also rests in part on those institutions charged with oversight of the Agency and its budget.

Congress has supported the Agency as it launched this new venture. The U.S. Congress "seeded the venture with start-up funding" when it was still in its conceptual phase, but asked hard questions of the Agency throughout the design and formation of In-Q-Tel. Members understood that starting an enterprise such as In-Q-Tel is not risk free. As with all R&D efforts in government and industry, there will be some home run successes but also some failures. That is the price the Agency must be prepared to pay if it wants to stay on the leading edge of the IT revolution. With In-Q-Tel’s help plus the continued support of Congress and Office of Management and Budget or OMB, as well as from the traditional Agency contractor community and others, an "e-CIA" of the next century will evolve quickly, to the benefit of the President and the national security community.


"Drug Cartels Hold Tech Advantage", Washington Post, ( November 15, 1999). The article alleges that certain cartels are making sophisticated use of the Internet to communicate securely and protect their operations.;

For the next year or two, In-Q-Tel will accept work only from the CIA. All solutions that it provides to the CIA will be made available to the entire Intelligence Community.;

Codified in a five-year Charter Agreement with the CIA and a one-year funding contract that is renewable annually.;

"Information Technology Trends and Their Impact on CIA". An unclassified report issued January 1999 by the Agency’s Chief Information Officer.;

As stipulated in the Charter Agreement, "…the Federal Government shall have a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced for or on behalf of the United States the subject invention throughout the world for Government purposes".;

The Agency component that has day-to-day responsibility for guiding the CIA’s relationship with In-Q-Tel, including the design and implementation of the contract and the problem set, is the In-Q-Tel Interface Center (QIC) which resides in the Directorate of Science and Technology.;

The In-Q-Tel Heirarchy

The players are stacked up on a list which reads like one of Robert Ludlum's international intrigue, high-tech corporate spy novels. The Board of Trustees is a who's-who of big corporate America.

There's the former CIA hierarchy head on the Board, CEO's from AT&T, XEROX, LUCENT, et al. There are "University connections" too. Even a "Telecredit" former titular head to keep a watchful eye on credit transactions. Then there's the money launderers of Goldman Sachs, et al.. And the keanest trick to the whole list is a pro at the gaming world and gaming world "online"! My only message to Robert Ludlum is: "Bob? Get out your typewriter!"

Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, most recently was Hasboro Interactive’s Chief Creative Officer and General Manager of the group, responsible for creating Hasboro’s Internet game site. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of MicroPose, CEO and Chairman of Spectrum Holobyte, and CEO of Sphere Inc. He is on the Boards of Directors of numerous software firms.

Lee Ault, Chairman, former Chairman and CEO of Telecredit, Inc;

Norman Augustine, former Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation.;

John Seely Brown, Chief Scientist, Xerox Corporation and President, Xerox PARC Research Center.;

Michael Crow, Executive Vice Provost of Columbia University;

Stephen Friedman, Senior Principal of Marsh & McLennan Capital, Inc., and former Chairman of Goldman Sachs and Co;

Paul Kaminski, former Undersecretary of the U. S. Defense for Acquisition and Technology Office and President and CEO of Technovations, Inc., Senior Partner in Global Technology Partners.;

Jeong Kim, President of Carrier Network, part of the Lucent Technologies Group, and former founder of Yurie Systems;

John McMahon, , former Deputy Director of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency [CIA], former President and CEO of Lockheed Missile & Space Company and consultant to Lockeed-Martin Corporation.;

Alex Mandl, Chairman and CEO of Teligent and former President and CEO of AT&T; and,

William Perry, former U.S. Secretary of Defense and currently Berberian Professor at Leiland Stanford University. [ probably will be at the Menlo Park, CA facility of In-Q-Tel ].

U.S.A., Washington, D. C. - July 11, 2001: The United States', Whitehouse website was completely revamped from its formerly attractive and informative original format, shortly after the Bush Presidency took over. Gone instantly under The Presidential Administration of George Bush, went the Whitehouse's "Virtual Library" and other advanced website-design features.
The Center For intelligent Information Retrieval (CIIR) - after eight (8) years of its hosting, suppling information to the general public on government issues of information and reserach - the search engine formerly known as GovBot ( an incredibly U.S. Government Search Engine source) all of a sudden dismantled, disbanded and/or, switch-modified into oblivion or, at least away from public viewing.
The newly revised and sanitized version replacement today for the U.S. Government Search Engine is now a different U.S. Government Search Engine designed for typical sanitized general public information dissemination. The site's webpage is now at: FirstGov.
What exactly occured seemed to be uncertain at first however, the Whitehouse webpage underwent a total and major "downgrade". The Whitehouse's former webpage is no more. It use to have NO notification or broad publicized mention regarding the name of the President, etc..
An interesting note is, under the Clinton Presidential Administration, the Clinton Presidency "had its own webapge, completely separate" from that of the U.S. Government's Whitehouse webpage. See, e.g. U.S. Presidential Administration - Whitehouse Website.
Now, under the George Bush Presidential Administration, George Bush has "his name", etc. plastered and publicized throughout the U. S. Government's Whitehouse webpage, the "downgraded" website. See, .e.g. United States of America Government - Whitehouse Website.
What happened and what's going on with the CIIR/GovBot Search Engine though? It seems that someone's or something's mistake created a paranoid reaction/belief that warranted prohibiting the general public's access to what used to be a substantial government-based information database search engine, filled with research material that happened to be mistakingly combined with "private sector webpage or website information". It was proposed as perhaps, a possible "threat to national security" that such vast amounts of data was being made available to just anyone, including certain private scientists.
Was there "really a potential threat"? Unfortunately, yes! Apparently, some numbskull(s) riddled the previous CIIR search engine database of CIIR with some unguarded Sensitive Compartmented Information (aka) SCI, e.g., back-channel and ship-to-shore traffic messages (including a webpage-handy OCR translator engine) which, dealt with CIA, National Security Agency, SPACOM, SPAWARS, DOD and other U.S. Government agency website material being public-access available.
The task to weed-out the SCI data was unable to be performed by any U.S. Government agency so, the complete elimination of CIIR's search engine database was dismantled for general public use. Now, how do "I" know this? Because, I informed the government through an acquaintance of mine who - at the time, in mid-1997 - was employed within the National Security Agency. It took nearly four (4) years for the U.S. Government to do something. Quick response, huh?
Bottomline. More closures to U.S. Government Information Resources.
EDITORIAL: Since this article (as above) was posted on this website, the government finally responded to my [ Editor-Web Administrator ] e-mails to both the Executive Branch and their Whitehouse Web Administrator requesting that they "upgrade their sloppy re-do job of this Country's Whitehouse Website" and, their response back to me was that they upgraded it "somewhat" and corrected all but one (1) other error. They left the President's name in the upper-left hand corner on the first webapge, i.e. the Whitehouse Home Page. By the way, they never even sent me an e-mail response, they just did the work which, is fine by me.









Space missions and explorations are a business venture which, goes hand-in-hand since, we do not travel to outer-space on leisure activities, to date but, some of us view for pleasure the most outer reaches of the universe. We are watching, listening and, hoping for some wild breakthrough which, will provide us all with an answer to our long-time submitted question of, "Are We Alone?". Whether the eventual answer comes to us - as what we wanted to hear or not - we nevertheless want to continue our search for that answer.

In our efforts to discover that answer, we have manned missions for close-range "outer-space" travel, to and from Earth and we have un-manned missions for distant travel ventures into what we refer to as "deep-space". And, we're still charting other galaxies which we don't seem to be able to even reach today and so far, we haven't found an end to that job. So, the universe continues to remain fully "un-charted", to date by us and will probably remain so for some time to come.

Deep Space 1 & Borrelly Comet ( UPDATE )


MILKY WAY - September 24, 2001: In a risky flyby, the NASA Deep Space 1 ailing spacecraft successfully navigated past the Borrelly Comet, giving researchers the best look ever inside the glowing core of icy dust and gas. The space probe's close-capture and encounter occured successfully on, September 22, 2001.

Today, Deep Space 1 is nearly 1.5-times as far away as the Earth is to the Sun or, about 575-times as far away from the Earth to the Moon. At this distance, i.e. 220-million kilometers (137-million miles), radio signals - traveling at the universal spped limit for today's deep-space communication transfers, i.e. the speed of light - takes about 24-1/2 minutes to make the round-trip from Deep Space 1 to Earth and back. See, e.g., "COSMIC Photos", on this website for a better photo view.

Deep Space 1 & Borrelly Comet

MILKY WAY - September 21, 2001: Within NASA's Deep Space 1 (aka) DS-1- unlike standardized-type rocket-fueled engines - this spacecraft's ion engine (nuclear-powered, hydrazine propulsion) accelerates nearly continuously, giving each ion a tremendous burst of speed. The Deep Space 1 (aka) DS1 engine, provides about 10-times the specific impulse (ratio of thrust to propellant used) of chemical propulsion. DS-1 also has on-board a, Miniature Ion and Electron Spectrometer. The mass of this instrument that is considered a "space physics package" and is less than 25% that of currently used comparable instruments. It also requires about 50% less power than conventional instruments.

Deep Space 1's risky encounter with the Borrelly Comet on September 22, 2001 has gone extremely well when the aging spacecraft successfully passed within 2,200 kilometers (about 1,400 miles) of the comet at 22:30 Universal Time (3:30 p.m. PDT), on this date. See, e.g., "COSMIC Photos" on this website for more.

The images and other data collected from the Borrelly Comet so far will help scientists learn a great deal about other intriguing members of the solar system family. DS-1 now has provided us with glimpses of the secrets that this comet has held since before the planets were formed.

Signals confirming the successful encounter were received on Earth at 3:43 p.m. PDT, and data containing the first clues to the composition of the comet came a few hours after the close brush with the comet.

Mission managers confirmed that the spacecraft was able to use all four of its instruments aimed at the Borrelly Comet. Data will be returned over the next few days as DS-1 sends to Earth black-and-white pictures, infrared spectrometer measurements, ion and electron data, and measurements of the magnetic field and plasma waves around the comet. Pictures of the comet will be released after they are all sent to Earth in the next few days.

Several hours before the encounter, the ion and electron monitors began observing the comet's environment. The action increased about an hour and a half before the closest approach, when for two minutes the infrared spectrometer collected data that will help scientists understand the overall composition of the surface of the comet's nucleus. Deep Space 1 began taking its black-and-white images of the comet 32-minutes before the spacecraft's closest pass to the comet, and the best picture of comet Borrelly was taken just a few minutes before closest approach, as the team had planned. Two minutes before the spacecraft whizzed by the comet, its camera was turned away so that the ion and electron monitors could make a careful examination of the comet's inner coma the cloud of dust and gas that envelops the comet.

Scientists on Deep Space 1 hope to find out the nature of the comet's surface, measure and identify the gases coming from the comet, and measure the interaction of solar wind with the comet.

Deep Space 1 completed its primary mission testing ion propulsion and 11 other advanced, high-risk technologies in September 1999. NASA extended the mission, taking advantage of the ion propulsion and other systems to undertake this chancy but exciting encounter with the comet.

Deep Space 1 was launched in October 1998 as part of NASA's New Millennium Program, which is managed by JPL for NASA's, Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C.. The California Institute of Technology manages the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (aka) J.P.L. in Pasadena, California for the National Aeronautic & Space Administration (aka) N.A.S.A.. See, e.g., "COSMIC Photos" for more.

Nibbling Away On Our Milky Way


MILKY WAY, Earth - September 5, 2001: Our Chandra deep-space surveillance spacecraft for NASA, has been busy looking around our galaxy and finally found somethiing "huge" in October of 2001. It wasn't until astronomers interpreted Chandra's image transmissions that they were able to finally figure it out that, we "do" in-fact have our very own, Black Hole.

Now although we were just recently informed in September 2001 that, some monumental news awaited us, right here in our Milky Way galaxy. Our recent discovery was that our own galaxy, is shrinking to a much "smaller" size. Why? Because, we just discovered that we are all being sucked into our very own Black Hole. The final event won't come for us, anytime soon though.

Our Milky Way galaxy's Black Hole however, is having an effect on all many other stars in our galaxy though. Perhaps, even our own Sun. Some anamolies we are able to observe while others we haven't even a clue about yet as to "why" some anomalies are occuring. The quick answer is, "Just blame it all on the Black Hole!".

The fact remains that, our Black Hole is extremely hungry and gobbling up stars and galaxies en masse. See, e.g., "COSMIC Photos", on this webite for more.


ETT Photos
UFO Photos
CRIME Photos


Notice: Microsoft has no responsibility for the content featured in this Web Community. Click here for more info.
go to Make it Your Home
MSN Home My MSN Hotmail Search Shopping Money People & Chat
   ©2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.  Terms of Use  Advertise  TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement  GetNetWise