DoJ releases bogus stadium threat information

Update 5:35P EST Thurs, 19 Oct 06 Visit here for October Stadium Hoax ABC: Blogger Admits hoax on Stadium scare

Update: 12:05 EST Fri, 20 Oct 06CBS has some interesting perspective on the 19 Oct 2006 bogus NFL plot: Things the media didn't consider.

* * *

Original

The information is not credible.

The FBI states that it has specific information from a website stating how people may or may not do things.

The revelations appear to be part of a disinformation campaign, and not a bonafide problem. Curiously, the revelations contradict the President's statements about "concerns" with the NSA revelations.

Five other examples of this type of propaganda, disinformation, and distraction include:

A. the bogus "foreign fighters" in Iraq from Iran [ Click ];

B. the Iranian ballot issue [ Click ];

C. the bogus NYT Subway threat [ Click ]; and

D. the problematic UAE port deal [ Click ]

E. the "big scary story" about 2002 and Los Angeles [ Click ]

* * *

There is a name for this activity: "black propaganda." It is intersting how creative it can be. Sometimes a source is painted as "bonafide".

Black propaganda is used to stir up people against a specific cause. It can be used to make one enemy believe that "someone else" is causing problems in order to rally forces or mobilize action. Black propaganda is generated to make a civilian populatoin believe that "someone else" has a view that warrants a response.

The purpose of black propaganda is to make disinformation appear to be from another source that deserves attention. It is not designed to be accurate. Rather, it is designed to shift attention from real issues, motivate someone or a group to action it would other wise not do.

The key to analyzing black propaganda is to notice where the attention if focused, then look in the opposite direction.

THe best thing to do is not respond and remain focused on what is most important: The NSA issue, and gathering evidence the White House hopes the Supreme Court never orders be turned over to the Grand Jury.

Black propganda works when we can convince others that the "real source" is someone other than our own government. The problem with black propaganda is that it can divert resoures from higher, real priorities.

The FBI revelations appear to be more consistent with black propaganda, not with a bonafide risk assessment linked with actionable material from a credible source. Rather, the information appears to be manufactured.

* * *

It remains unclear why the Congress is concerned about "revelations" over the NSA unlawful activty, but are welcoming similar revelations by the FBI. There is a simple explanation: The annoucement is not credible.

Congress welcomes threat information when it is bogus, not when it shows the government is violating the law. One is easy to face; the other admits the Congress has failed.

We judge the stadium revelations are not from a bonafide source. Rather the rvelations appear to be an latnerative route to do what the DHS alerts have done: Keep people on edge.

* * *

Three are several problems with the FBI alert on the stadiums.

First, the information is not specficic, raising questions why it was or was not released at this time. It would be more appropriate to keep a bonafide security alert private to not tip off others what is known or not known.

Second, the threat -- source and time -- of the activity are speculative. The vagueness of the information, combined with the public disclosure that is not helpful, raises questions why it was publicly shared. Rather, it's most liely public because it does just that: Casts a wide net without being specific to time and lcoation. This is likelky linked to new bogus excuses JTTF will use to intrude and illegally gather evidence. More is on the way.

Third, it reveals potentional methods law enforcement may use to monitor potential threats. Well trained JTTF would never disclose this. Rather, disclosing the source as "something else," is a false assertion on validity and reliablity; JTTF would not comment on what they do or do not know. Rather, a bonafide "risk report on a website" would trigger an effort to shut down the site -- as was done with the RNC phone call list, and the MI6 personnel on the Italian site -- not publicize the details. Publication of something that should be swiftly shut down suggests the opposite objective: It's not a warning, but a bogus threat.

Fourth, even if true, the information inappropriately reveals information about what the FBI may or may not know. The appropriate public comment is to say nothing about what they do or do not know. FBI agents are reguarly briefed on sources and methods. They know it is illegal to reveal sources and methods -- it is classified. The FBI can reveal infromation when the information is manufactured.

* * *

We judge the black propganda is designed to occupy air time, and distract attention from the emerging evidence which the Supreme Court will likely find mandats the PResident comply with a FOIA request.

The real effort behind the UAE and FBI revelations is simple: To delay time until the 2006 when the District Court will have to face this issue.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court as it did with Nixon will have to adjudicate whether the White House does or does not have to comply with a subpoena. The goal is to delay Congressional focus on that line of discovery, and delay the motion until after the 2006 election.

The event is primarily designed to distract resources, and take other items off the agenda: The NSA unlawful activity. The more items the Joint Staff and RNC can put on the agenda -- thereby distratcing Congress -- the less time Congress will have to realize what is going on.

The most likely source of this information is the office of special plans inside DoD or a Special Operations Command contractor possibly linked with a domstic CIA cover activity.

* * *

FBI would not publicly state what they do or do not know; nor the methods used to get the information.

That they've publicly commented on the source implies they are not interested in protecting the method of getting the information -- suggesting the source is not real.

Moreover, if this were a real threat, JTTF would have revealed this only confidentially, not publicly. PUblicly commenting on this is problematic, as was the NYPD comments about the supposed subway threat -- later linked to an illegal interrogation.

* * *

DHS and JTTF appear to be planing more rumors to stir things up.

If this were a bonafide threat, FBI wouldn't reveal publicly what could happen. Using the President's "ratoinale about the NSA programs" -- discusing operations would "tip poeple off".

Why is there a double standard on which information is or is not discussed? Because this information is bogus; and the NSA activity is illegal.