Intelligence Community Directive
The IC Directive is fair notice to We the People that nothing magic happens behind closed doors in the intelligence community.
Where things do not make sense, or reasonable answers are not forthcoming, the problem is for the IC to resolve; nor for We the People to blindly fund.
Do your jobs, or we'll find someone else who is marginally less obnoxious.
Translation: We the People know how to make the NSA and IC contractors go through budget exercises, funding drills, and reprogramming like you never imagined. If you want your money, stop giving We the People garbage.
Ref What is the Speakers analysis of the President's plan to implement martial law?
The document essentially outlines how intelligence analysis is conducted in the American intelligence community. This is a stunning revelation: It's not magic.
Ref: D.2 (2 of 8) For the directive to say "no agency" on its own can do something contradicts the premise of Gonzalez before the Senate Judiciary: The President, as an agency, outside FISA, and beyond Congress, could act on its own; and contradicts the Judiciary assent to the illegal Military Commissions Act which illegally says the prisoners may not challenge their detentions.
D3: "Collaboration" if it is the norm, implies communication with Congress and the Judiciary; not an assertion by the President he alone can decide something.
D5: "Transparency" if it is required, would contradict the White House claim that it cannot reveal sources and methods. That transparency is the standard, but the White House does not meet this standard, suggests the White House is hiding information it does not want the public to know about illegal activity, misadministration, and other impeachable offenses.
D7: Customers: Admits does not have all the answers. Admits that it uses outside expertise in academia, industry, and non-government. This means that there are contracts which Congress can review; and personnel who are on the contracts who can be subpoenaed. This also means that the things going into an out of the intelligence community are not so beyond this world that they cannot be independently understood, explained, or discussed.
Translation: When people make stupid arguments, it means, despite access to PhDs, that they would rather brow beat We the People. Not going to happen anymore. The burden of proof rests on the intelligence community and the American government to competently explain in plain English your conclusion; where you spew forth non-sense the problem is yours. The audience you are discussing these issues are highly trained, competent, and able to understand whether you are or are not able to make a coherent argument. Lack of coherence is your problem is explain and remedy; not one for We the People to wade through. Where there is problem with your analysis, or you fail to treat We the People professionally, we the people may lawfully delegate to new entities the ability, funding, and right to provide us with assessments.
Translation: When you give us garbage, we can cut your funding and find someone else to do things that We the People are currently doing -- your jobs. If you want to get paid, do your job better than marginally educated bloggers can do.
It is unacceptable, despite the 5100.77 laws of war program, and clear standard that it is illegal under ORCON to classify evidence of illegal activity, that we the People are forced to put up with this non-sense with the Iraq and Iran WMD.
I expect the CEOs of the NSA and IC contractors to get called into the House and Senate Select Committees to fully explain what is going on with their support.
___ How much work related to illegally activity have they been assigned on contract to perform?
___ Where are the copies of the memoranda which cannot legally be classified related to known violations of the US Constitution which their analysts know about?
___ Why are analysts working in civilian contracting facilities under gag orders to be silent about this illegal activity?
The burden is on the intelligence community, contractors, and those who are getting US government funding: Time for you to wake up.
The NSA intercept capability which you well know exists, can be and has been applied to your facilities. Copies of the records, planning meeting minutes, and other program management documentation exists in GCHQ and in other locations outside your contracting facility.
US prosecutors have access to this information. If you choose to support the President's illegal activity, you may be lawfully prosecuted. No claim of immunity is credible.
When you abuse your sources -- as this IC does -- that information is not reliable; and when you ignore your sources -- as this IC does -- those sources will dry up. It is not acceptable for the IC to solicit open ended invitations to get information; but then abuse your sources. Knock it off.
People around the globe are willing to out of their way to do the right thing. But they will not be mistreated; and when you compromise their identity, or you fail to protect the nature of the information they provide, then you are making more enemies than had you done nothing.
I expect the civilian contractors to get called on the carpet, and get their management to explain in detail for the intelligence community why their civilian contractors feel the "need" to abuse those who dare to cooperate with the American government; while those who openly wage lawful warfare are treated as if they are crazy. On the contrary, the Civilian contractors who violate the law are more of a threat to this nation's security that a lawful combatant who wages lawful war against US forces. The enemy is within. The incompetence is unacceptable. Fix your leadership, training, and competence problem.
The IC has annoyed the wrong civilian population: We the People. You have failed to ensure your programs were under lawful review; and failed to ensure your integrity was maintained. All lessons about what you have been complicity are on par with the abuses the Nazis did: Flawed logic, absurd reasoning, and reckless disregard for basic principles.
You would like to believe that the IC analysis process is something that only a few can understand. You are wrong. Legal analysis is the same: It is based on one thing: Logic. The Constitution is based on the same. If you defy logic, you are asking the fundamental principles of the American Constitution go out the window. Bad choice and poor timing.
The IC does not have a credible basis to say that they are managing these resources. The IC at D9 does how on page 2 of 8 that there is other documentation that relates to something very simple: Systems engineering. This is not magic, but well within the scope of We the People to understand:
___ To what extent are the systems engineering principles taught at the intelligence community facilities consistent or inconsistent with basic principles of engineering, science, and management.
___ To what extent are the basic principles of program management effectively employed?
___ How responsive is the IC to audits of those program management plans?
The burden is on the IC, not We the People to wade through your non-sense. Either you are doing your job; or you are not. If you fail to do your job, you get no money. And funds which have been recklessly managed by incompetent managers can be the subject of charge backs, fines, and withholds. You may through your contracts reassign corporate officers, have new names, and new letter head: But as fast as your names can be added to new lists, We the People can put that new entity on the do not hire black list. Stop messing around.
E. There are basic principles of oversight, command and control, and responsibilities. These are known, auditable, and should trace back to fundamental principles and documents.
If the IC refuses to disclose or respond to question, We the People are able to make adverse judgments and cut your funding lines to ZERO.
E1. Delegation letters are admissible. All illegal programs related to the NSA Act of 1947 are subject to the Speaker's review. If you review to cooperate, your funding line will go to Zero.
If the IC refuses to assent to Legislative Orders which trump Executive Orders, your funding line will go to Zero. It is illegal for Executive Orders to hide illegal activity.
Delegation letters shall be provided upon demand per Legislative Orders from the Speaker. Where the IC refuses to provide inputs, the Speaker may independently use methods which the IC does not have the ability to review which may or may not be in the interests of the IC.
Delegation letters, when they are not linked with bonafide oversight, performance plans, and explanations for retraining shall be deemed to e defective, and out of standard. The Speaker through the Legislative Orders shall have the right and power to review at her discretion samples of these management plans to assess the competence of management in responding to budget exercises, simulated crises, and actual problems to test whether the intelligence community is or is not providing war fighters and the Speaker with useful information. The Speaker may use methods which the IC does not know about to independently test, penetrate, and extract sensitive information for purposes of testing the competence of management and analysts in the IC community.
Where there are known coordination lines and planning meetings, those meeting minutes shall be reviewable by the Speaker or her designee. The Speaker and her Committee Staff on the Committees of the House shall have the right to direct the NSA, CIA, DoD, DOJ, and other agencies to directly report to her or her designee the status of the modernization efforts; and statements as to the legality or illegality of the activities. This information is admissible and may be used by war crimes prosecutors to adjudicate the illegal use of information to carry out war crimes.
The Speaker shall have access to all authorities, guidelines, guidance, objectives, and other management documentation with the IC.
All working papers used to develop the intelligence priorities are reviewable.
The National Intelligence Priorities Framework is an auditable delivery that shall be made available upon demand to the Speaker or her designee. Refusals to provide this information is the basis to make adverse inferences, and the Speaker may make the non-reviewable decision to cut your budget line to Zero.
The authorities and responsibilities used to develop IC products are reviewable at any time by the Speaker or her designee. Open source information can be used to estimate these lines of authorities; efforts to not provide this information, assert it is classified, or deny the Speaker any of this information shall be the basis for the Speaker to reduce your budget line to Zero.
E1. Where there are responsibilities, there shall be a clear understanding that that legal responsibility is linked with a credible consequence for illegal activity, misadministration, poor judgment, or lack of candor to the Speaker or her designee. The Speaker expects the responsibility assignment matrices to be complete, subject to audit; and developed in accordance with systems engineering practices. Failure to do this will raise reasonable questions:
___ If the IC cannot or will not do this, what basis is there for the IC to pass judgment on foreign entities on the same problems?
___ If the IC cannot recognize management problems with the IC community, what basis is there to believe that IC will understand how foreign management problems can be credibly leveraged?
Before the IC can compel the Speaker to believe IC can or cannot do its job, it must demonstrate it is willing and able to assent to reasonable standards as applied to IC. Where there is no demonstrated compliance program, the IC is not in a credible basis to make leaps of faith as applied to less certain, distant management systems in Iran.
Please provide a discussion of last sentence in Eb1.
___ Who reviewed this document?
___ When was the document last marked for publication?
___ Who specifically wrote the last sentence in Eb1?
Analytic tools require a credible link with fundamental principles. In your presentation to the Speaker, please outline the following:
___ What hand written tools have been used when IT is not available?
___ How are you "national security needs" being identified?
___ Why is intelligence moving to support needs; and not the reverse: Why are needs and requirements not being adjusted to face reality?
___ Why aren't national goals linked with less rigid success criteria?
___ What is the plan of the IC to respond to security interests which are based on new less rigid approaches?
E1e(1) Please discuss why "implementing" X using formal process will "encourage" Y, which may or may not be linked with a specific process or something that is known.
____ Who specifically is arguing that a rigid approach to amorphous information is the way to go, when the outcome of that process may be inconsistent with a novel approach to solving a problem?
___ What is the approach IC takes to explore, without consultation with intelligence, a range of possible options, then assess for policy makers the viability of each option which may or may not be linked with a pre-determined approach?
___ When IC says that the analysis is "competitive," who is IC competing with? Be specific with the "competition".
___ What is the IC view of having the IC resources outside the Executive and Legislative branches?
3 of 8: The Speaker may from time to time require a sample of the success criteria the IC uses to evaluate whether the customers needs and requirements are being met.
___ What inputs has the IC had from the Speaker on this memoranda?
4 of 8: E1e(3):
___ What is the basis to conclude that this "principals" structure is effective?
___ Which SETA contracts have been issued to review the viability of this information flow?
___ What alternatives have been rejected?
___ Why, despite the "big lessons" of 9-11, is IC having a problem with data analysis: Is it a customer-intelligence problem in the Oval Office?
___ What are the views of the Joint Staff and war fighters on the timeliness of the work products?
Notice there is a difference between resource allocation for "intelligence analysis" and "collection system and operational activities".
Please discuss these planning factors and ratios with the speaker.
___ What is the basis to conclude that these planning factors are appropriate?
___ If the resource allocation decisions are credible, why are personnel in the IC and DOD tenant units spending time on the internet on non-official business? [Surprise: We know about the resource allocation problems, and management oversight issues.]
___ When the personnel assigned to IC engage in illegal activity, how is that information provided to the US Attorney; DOJ OPR; and Members of Congress?
___ What is the plan to ensure the reporting is timely?
___ What is the IC plan when US government leaders refuse to stop illegal activity?
___ Please discuss your documented actions when this illegal activity was known before Sept 2001; and how this information was forwarded to auditors and the US attorney.
___ When did legal counsel review this report.
4 of 8: E1e(4): IC has a big problem. The people who are able to review your plans are able to do things which IC is not able to do. You are also outnumbered. If you screw around with the responses, you will be discovered. Each statement you make shall be supported by evidence; without evidence, the scale tips away from you.
___ What is the method that "differences in analytic judgment" will be visibly made available to the Speaker and her designees?
___ Why are legal counsel not permitting Members of Congress to consult their own advisors?
___ What was IC plan when they realized We the People knew of the illegal activity?
___ How were the "differences in analytic judgment" factored into the analysis when We the People were known to be able to review this information and the gaps?
IC has a big problem. It appears IC and the White House are on the same page: complicit with war crimes. These are matters the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors are now reviewing.
This memo shows that there was a system in place to do what should have been done. The question is why, despite 5100.77 and Geneva, the IC and Oval Office appear to have assented to illegal warfare, unlawful abuse, and illegal prisoner treatment.
4 of 8: E1e(5):
___ How was prisoner abuse factored into the reality of the information?
___ When information was provided to Members of Congress, how did IC identify information which was the fruit of illegal abuse, prisoner mistreatment, or other harsh conditions?
___ Does IC understand that foreign fighters may impose like abuse on IC personnel?
4 of 8: E1e(4):
___ What legal review was done of the procedures, methods, and other processes to ensure that they were independently segregated, subject to legal review?
___ When IC legal counsel reviewed this memoranda, did they realize that We the People would cooperate with war crimes prosecutors to disbar those counsel for recklessly not fully asserting their Article 82 Geneva obligations?
___ Does counsel understand that it is the target of this war crimes investigation and that they may be adjudicated for complicity with war crimes?
___ Does IC counsel understand that the consequences for impeding, misleading, or obstructing a war crimes tribunal may be adjudicated to be a subsequent war crime punishable by the death penalty?
Please provide to the Speaker a copy of the training plan IC counsel have related to 5100.77, Article 82, and the laws war program. In your response, please discuss the transfer of information from the IC counsel to commercial entities involved with the shipment, transport, and movement of personnel using illegally captured information.
___ When did IC counsel review the use of this information?
According to this memoranda and IC directive, personnel in IC have a duty to coordinate with policy makers and users. This means one thing: There were active consultations between IC, the civilian contractors, and the personnel using that information when alleged war crimes were being planned, implemented.
___ When prior to Sept 2001 did IC learn of the illegal surveillance?
___ How long has the IC counsel known about the unlawful use of data to support war crimes?
___ When did the IC counsel plan to fully assert their attorney standards of conduct and provide this information to legal authorities?
Please provide the speaker with a list of all IC counsel assigned; their state of bar certification, and any known enforcement of disciplinary proceedings. In your response include the Attorney identification number for the state bar, contact information, the date the attorney passed the licensing board examination, and the name of the institution they received their legal training.
___ When did the IC last review this list?
___ When did the IC leadership review the competence of IC counsel assigned?
___ When did IC leadership review the legal credentials of IC counsel assigned?
___ What were the results of this review?
___ Which IC counsel assigned were found to be deficient in their knowledge of 5100.77, Geneva, and the laws of war?
___ How did IC counsel coordinate plans to transfer data from Boeing and Narus to AT&T and Verizon for purpose of developing target lists?
___ When did IC counsel know that the information used and captured was being used to support alleged war crimes?
___ Did IC counsel have a plan to review their Article 82 Geneva obligations?
___ Does IC counsel understand that there is no statute of limitations on war crimes?
___ Does IC counsel understand that GCHQ is able to monitor the computer that you are using to read this material?
___ Does I counsel understand that your attorney-client privilege does not apply when you are actively involved with war crimes, fail to repent them, or you are no longer able to show you are engaging in lawful, protected activity?
___ Does IC counsel understand that the German war crimes prosecutors is reviewing this IC plan for purposes of adjudicating war crimes?
Using methods which IC is unable to detect, or monitor, it is known which date the IC met with NARUS and the intermediaries at various contracts.
Payroll stubs linking NARUS, DoD, and AT&T are known: The are liked through a common contract vehicle known to the IC community. At the same time, Boeing is alleged to have been involved with the prisoner transport systems.
___ Does IC counsel understand that this data is in the hands of the German war crimes prosecutor?
___ Does IC counsel understand that civilian attorneys were legally executed for their complicity with war crimes at Nuremberg?
___ Does IC counsel comprehend that your legal problem is well understood by We the People, foreign fighters, and war crimes prosecutors?
___ Does IC counsel understand that these are serious issues of alleged IC counsel complicity with, and failure to prevent allegations which could be adjudicated with the death penalty?
___ Does IC counsel understand that all phone calls, memoranda, and all electronic or mail transmission of any data to and from private counsel on these matters has been intercepted, is known, and does not enjoy protection?
These are not issues of silly procedures which the US legal community can hide. These are issues of intelligence which foreign fighters, other nationals, and personnel outside the US do not need to respect.
US IC has violated their privacy; under the laws of war they may legally violate IC counsel privilege, and lawfully capture all data which may be related to war crimes. Just as the US JTTF uses illegally captured data to "stumble upon" other leads, foreign fighters and war crimes prosecutors are permitted to do the same.
___ Does IC counsel understand that your computers have been compromised?
___ Does the IC counsel understand that all electronic data transmission tools which NSA relies to back door access into other systems has been applied to you?
___ Does IC counsel understand the limits of the NSA modernization effort?
___ Does IC counsel understand that foreign fighters have communication systems and encryption methods which NSA cannot decrypt?
The IC community is in a very big mess. The National security council knows full well that the there are methods which other nations may use to access any and all IC counsel information systems, and can access the legal defenses which IC counsel are contemplation.
The problem: It is well known that the legal defenses IC counsel hope to use are frivolous, will not stand up in any court, and are no excuse for these war crimes. Again, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Civilians may be legally executed if they are found guilty of being complicity with war crimes.
The IC directive tells us one thing: There were written procedures in place that IC counsel were instrumental in crafting. They were either aware of the illegal activity; or they failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the illegal activity and alleged war crimes were ended. IC Counsel appears to have failed in this regard.
The document also outlines the specific procedures, reporting lines, and other oversight which knew, or should have known, before Sept 2001 that there was illegal activity which NSA was actively engaged. Personnel assigned under IRTPA have a problem: You are identifiable, you have a legal requirement, and that legal requirement appears to have been breached either through reckless indifference, or through incompetence. Either way, it is allegedly illegal, and all efforts to destroy evidence related to this activity have been monitored.
It doesn't matter if you do or do not cooperate: You will either end your illegal rebellion; or you will be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters to suffer the same abuses you have allegedly permitted others to endure in violation of Geneva.
There is no excuse. The problem with the IC is its failure to understand when it was the subject of the observation; and to what extent foreign fighters used their methods to penetrate your systems. Your National Security Council appears to have not well supported you as they should have when devising systems that would protect your communication.
___ How does the IC community explain the public discussion of things that were supposedly never discussed?
___ How does IC explain the outside knowledge of things that were supposedly encrypted?
E1j. Fatally documenting the known process related to PDB. Big problem. The people who developed this directive are linked with that process. Their names are known. they have defined budget authority; and they are on a specific budget line. If they refuse to cooperate, their funding line at the discretion of the Speaker goes to Zero.
E1k. "Open source information" means reading the Constitution and statutes:
___ Is what we're doing supporting illegal warfare? [ Y/N ]
E1l. "Homeland security council" meetings.
___ What is the plan of IC to include Senate and House Committees on these updates?
E1m. "performance standards".
___ Where is the review of 5100.77 and Article 82 in this IC directive?
___ Why is it not included?
E1n. "performance of service of common concern"
___ When did DoD plan to provide a briefing to the Speaker on the DoD-affiliated assets which are hostile to the US military in Iraq?
___ Does IC have a plan to immediately provide to SecDef the information needed to fully coordinate on reviewing why these hostile entities are still getting arm shipment from the US government?
___ How much intelligence information is gleaned from these hostile units getting US weapons?
___ Who in the Attorney General’s office and IC counsel's office is deciding what is "authorized by law"?
___ How is this determination documented?
___ What was going on prior to Sept 2001 on the illegal NSA monitoring before the AUMF or events of Sept 2001?
___ How are delegation letters reviewed, audited, and assessed that personnel have or have not fully had legal training on 5100.77 and Geneva?
E2a. "Day-to-day management" means the personnel should have some sort of management training.
___ Where did they get their training?
___ How was this monitored?
___ How were management skill sets reviewed, supervised?
E2a. "private sector"
___ Where are the budget lines to support travel costs by program element code?
___ When does the IC counsel plan to provide this list to the Speaker so she may make timely decisions on which budget lines to zero-out [Speaker's line-item veto power: Goose egg.]?
E2a. "composed of senior analysts"
___ Discuss your meeting minutes, travel arrangements, and whether you are satisfied that the personality conflicts have been resolved.
___ Does the Speaker need to make some no-notice visits to get the "senior" analysts to wakeup to the shift in power?
___ Do you enjoy talking to private counsel about war crimes?
E2a. "compile the necessary briefing materials"
___ When did IC counsel realize that the computer systems used to create these briefings had been penetrated?
You're not liking this for one reason: We the People have the power, not you. You have to decide whether you are on the side of the Speaker and Constitution; or whether you’re going to stay inappropriately close with the President and your continued illegal rebellion.
These are issues of war crimes. We the People shall be respected; if you fail, we may lawfully delegate to foreign fighters the power to lawfully destroy systems, personnel, and other equipment being illegally used to support illegal warfare; and engager in like destruction of facilities which the IC community has illegally supported targeting.
Where civilians are illegally abused, IC personnel may -- under the principle of reciprocity -- be legally targeted for like abuse. If you are involved with illegal planning, and do not remove yourself, you may be viewed by some lawful combatants as a legitimate military target.
___ How was this possibility factored into your 5100.77 reviews?
___ What review of the 5100.77 program was done to ensure this IC directive, as it relates to the HSC meeting briefings, was fully vetted for Geneva obligations?
E2a: "stipulated", line 9.
This is a key word indicating legal counsel has well reviewed this document.
Also outlines the personnel and process used to formulate the PDB, once asserted to be "beyond understanding" and "Confusing." Wow, there it is -- in black and white: Counsel appears to well understand that Rice's statements to the 9-11 Commission were, at best misleading. Rice can't credibly argue a process was "confusing" when DSP can combine FBI and CIA information. The argument about "the wall" is meaningless, which counsel knew or should have known was an incorrect impression left with Members of Congress.
E2a: "able to tap into the expertise of the IC as a whole"
E2a: access to "best insights" -- looks like Addington and Cheney trumps this. The "best insight" the Oval Office has is to assent to more war crimes. Not impressive.
E2b: PDB development.
It is incorrect to suggest that PDB on 6 Aug 2001 was no high quality. The President apparently knew something prior to Sept 2001 to start illegal monitoring.
___ What did the President know prior to Sept 2001 that triggered illegal NSA activity?
___ What was the IC information that supported this illegal executive order?
___ Does the IC understand that implementing this illegal executive order, and using the information gleaned to support war crimes -- prisoner abuse -- , is a serious problem?
___ What review did IC make of the "bad consequences" of committing war crimes in Eastern European detention centers, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo?
___ Did IC comprehend that the "bad effects" of the blowback include lawful action by foreign fighters to retaliate against IC analysts for the abuse committed upon civilians in other countries?
E2b: What is the IC definition of "all relevant views"
___ How are "non relevant views" punished with demotion?
___ When are US attorney legal views punished with firing?
___ What is the plan of the IC to respond to Speaker requests to talk directly with analysts without coordinating with PDB staff?
E1c: "locate analytic expertise" implies a tracking system.
___ When is IC going to provide this tracking system to the German War crimes prosecutor?
E1c [6 of 8] "mutually supporting"
___ Does this mean something specific?
___ Please provide examples.
___ When NSA IG visits, do you "mutually support" by giving advance notice of the audit interest areas?
___ How are security personnel used to harass people suspected of conducting under cover audits of IC?
___ Where in IC is there a list of the personnel believed to be undercover auditors for the Speaker?
____ How is legal counsel advised of litigation areas which may be used during interrogations?
E1c [6 of 8] "customer requirements"
___ How is the requirement of We the People factored into analysis: Thou shall not commit war crimes; thou shall not use illegally captured data t support war crimes; thou shall not permit use of weapon systems and ELINT to violate US Constitution?
___ How do we explain the pre Sept 2001 illegal NSA activity?
___ What is the explanation, despite [a] the training on what was or was not supposed to happen by way of legal requirements; with [b] what was going on with the actual monitoring, data transfer, and use of that information to abuse people?
E1d: "Analytic integrity and standards" and "Analytic ombudsman"
___ Q2 involved with the oversight?
___ What methods, including no notice audits and testing by trained auditors, is used to evaluate whether this is or is not occurring as designed?
E2D: "evaluation of finished intelligence"
___ What inputs does AIS and ODNI Ombudsman get from Addington, OSP, or the Vice President?
___ What views related to open source -- reasonable public concerns with reckless IC counsel conduct -- is factored into the analysis, reviews, and assessments for target motivations, relationships, and cell structure?
E2d: "joint training of new analysts in critical thinking skills"
___ Why is it determined that the "case study method" is appropriate?
___ What if the case study most relevant is one hat the IC refuses to accept?
E2d: "scientifically based analytic methodologies"
Problem: DoD has a problem deploying and sustaining weapon systems because the contracting community is weak on basis engineering skills.
___ Who specifically, despite this known problem with DoD program management and engineering support, is IC consulting to get inputs?
___ Is IC asking the Speaker to believe that the known scientific defects which plague the contracting community are somehow "not relevant" when it comes to IC issues?
___ How is this apparent IC technical weakness factored into the briefings given to Members of Congress on the NSA minimization procedures?
___ Is it reasonable to conclude that the people providing these briefings to the Speaker have a poor understanding of the areas they are supposedly the experts?
___ Why is IC not willing to permit Members of congress to have available legal counsel and technical advisors when providing information?
Translation: We the People may make he adverse inference that your refusal to permit Members of Congress to access technical experts has less to do with protecting classified information, but more with avoiding discovery [a] your technical "experts" are morons; and [b] your activities are not legally defendable; and [c] despite legal options, you are using the illegal methods because you are reckless in planning and work for war criminals in the Oval Office, DOJ, and White House.
National Security Counsel knows full well the problem with the NSA modernization efforts. There are things which other countries are doing which the NSA is not able to detect, monitor, and decipher.
E2d(1) "technical system incompatibilities"
___ Provide examples that are not speculative, but real world of when this occurs.
___ How are "modifications to IC analytic procedures" disclosed to Members of congress and legal counsel?
___ Where are these "modifications" documented?
E2d(1) "direct information connection"
___ How is this "direct" approach used by OSP and Addington to directly inform war fighters which information to release to the media?
E2d(2) "Analyst ombudsman"
___ How are the results of the Ombudsman reviews shared with the Speaker?
___ How are concerns with legal issues handled?
___ What expertise does the Ombudsman have in 5100.77, Geneva, and the Constitution?
___ Can the ombudsman provide a memo to any Member of Congress related to their legal concerns?
___ Does IC counsel have input to the Ombudsman's performance award?
___ What happens if the Ombudsman is aware of material information warranting the DC or State bars to conduct an investigation of the IC counsel; is there a training program for the Ombudsman to provide this information to the state bar for investigation outside the IC?
___ What happens if the Ombudsman recommendations -- "you should follow the law" -- get ignored; and the ombudsman is told to wait outside during "executive session": How is that handled; who reviews; and when is Congress brought into the discussion?
E2e [6 of 8] "enhancing knowledge generation"
___ What happens if the tools are novel, but arrive at conclusions inconsistent with pre-determined Oval Office assertions -- how are these tools discredited by the Principals?
___ When was the last time someone developed a competing system to this approach and demonstrated that they could or could not achieve superior results?
E2e [6 of 8] "build programs around successful innovations"
___ Does IC understand that software development failures, when not properly oversee, could result in expedited budget cancellation?
___ Doe IC understand that We the People know how to review and do technical audits?
___ When is IC going to provide a list of all software development efforts; with a summary of trends across all contractor efforts to examine which contractors consistently have problems?
___ How is this list shared with DoD IG, DoJ IG, and NSA IG?
___ Why are the same contractors who bungle a software program in DOJ getting hired to do work in the IC community?
___ How much money has to get wasted before IC concludes there is (currently) nobody available who can do what the analysts need by way of software?
Translation: Stop low-balling your technical complexity estimates to fit into the low-balled budgets. This is an integrity issue.
E2e [6 of 8]: "systemic imbalance between the volume to data collected and the numbers of analysts available"
___ What's the backlog on your translations?
___ How does this backlog compare with pre-9-11 data?
___ Why was Sibel Edmonds targeted for talking about this problem?
___ Why is IC documenting in this directive a problem Sibel was asked to believe did not exist, was not a problem, or the basis to question her reports to the Senate?
E2e [6 of 8]: "ADDNI/ATT will collaborate with . . . "
___ Where are samples of this coordination, collaboration, and interchange?
___ When will the Speaker be given the chance to review sample raw data, and how this process does or does not work during an emergency?
___ When was IC counsel and Congressional counsel given the chance to review these interchanges for legal compliance?
___ Please discuss the contracting education of ADDN Senior Acquisition Executive [AE]; and their attendance at various DoD-related program management courses.
___ Does AE have enough staff in place to prevent a problem observed with bogus technical requirements; fabricated contractor performance?
We the People, as measured by the reckless Oval Office policy and illegal activity, have a reasonable basis to question what is broken in the process.
___ What is getting in the way of IC to provide meaningful information?
___ Is the problem with the pre-determined agendas-solutions of the White House which continues to drive, top-down, analysis?
___ How many policy-level decisions have been made disconnected from intelligence; but IC has been tasked to "find" something that does not exist?
E2e(1) [6 of 8] "yearly experiment program"
___ In-Q-Tel budgets can be traced
E2e(1) [6 of 8]: "multi-agency collaboration"
___ How is NSC knowledge of foreign power capabilities, and inability of US, in some cases, to detect these methods, factored into the large data-pipeline required to integrate these systems?
___ When does IC plan to provide a list of the https [classified] internet sites used to plan, implement, and carry out the pre-Sept 2001 illegal NSA monitoring?
___ Which contractors have access to these https sites
___ Which contractors before Sept 2001 were supporting the illegal NSA surveillance, as evidenced by their access to the classified https websites?
E2e(2) [7 of 8]: "Senior technology representatives"
___ Which contractors have been excluded?
___ Which engineering experts have been chosen over others?
___ 3/4-D computer-modeling preferred over hand-drawn relationship diagrams?
___ Who reviews this Directive and conducts the audit: By name, how is this directive translated into an audit plan?
___ Once that information is obtained, how is the information summarized for the Speaker?
Problem: IC includes in the liaison -- as a "provider" -- agencies who are also users.
___ Who is the group that reviews this IC Directive and asks the obvious question: Is this working or not?
E2f: [ 7 of 8 ] "catalyst for IC analytic integration"
In plain English, please diagram the system engineering needed to transform this buzzword into a work product the Speaker can use:
___ What are the steps in this process;
___ What are the known risk areas in this analysis;
___ Provide two sample programs where this is applied [one successfully; and one that failed];
___ How are DoD, DHS, and JTTF integrated into this review;
___ How emerging threats/risks/indicators distinguished from random acts of lawful activity;
___ How is "shared appropriately" measured: Who has input; how are these sharing protocols reviewed; and provide examples of when this did not work; include a timeline for an audit and management assessment plan for a sample review. [Hint: We already know what happened; this is a test to see if you are lying; and whether the management you've assigned to respond is or is not responsive.]
E2f: [ 7 of 8 ]: "foster a Community of analysts"
Gag. This sounds like a morale issue. Need to see something that suggests this is an ongoing activity, not something that is just on paper.
Please provide some sample work schedules for four analysts on random programs to see their activities. The aim here is not to micromanage, but to review whether the workflows management is describing are consistent with the timelines analysts are using.
What's needed is a no-notice audit of the IC:
___ What are they are they rally doing;
___ How are the management formal responses to the then-disclosed audit consistent or inconsistent with the secretly gathered information?
___ How much disconnect is here between the real no-notice results; and the audit results where management is led to believe it is "no notice"?
Translation: Until we get a chance to review the "no notice audit" results and the "management involved audit" results, there's little reason to believe this policy paper and IC directive is really implemented. There are too many management buzzwords to suggest that this is a real directive that is seriously translated into day-to-day analysis. Something is not quite right this the language in this directive.
___ Which SETA functions are not listed?
___ Why no legal compliance reviews?
Sample: "foster an interactive role for analysis" -- huh? The issue is not the language or words you're using, but whether you're really "doing" what it says here: Talking.
___ When would this not be done that would otherwise require a directive to do it, formalize it, or provide guidance? [Give example situations and scenarios]
___ Share some examples, in the absence of this IC directive, where analysts didn't know what to do; were lost; or did not have guidance?
___ What changed between that fist condition; to now -- what was the catalyst; and discuss the timing of this IC directive: What prompted this IC directive?
E2f: "gauge performance against established metrics"
__ Besides EVMS, what cost and technical metrics are you referring?
Translation: The primary goal of intelligence is to support good decision. It makes no sense to have a quality center that has "great metrics" to acquire new systems; but the system management approaches used to create real intelligence today do not adequately demonstrate that they've implemented these lessons.
___ What kind of cross talk does IC counsel have with contracting to ensure the lessons from contracting -- by way of managing a contract -- are incorporated into the information flows when creating a management product?
Translation: It's OK to have someone cycle through an area, but I expect the contracting and legal expertise to be both ways:
___ Is counsel actively injecting themselves into the daily systems and activities to ensure that the analysts know who they can talk to if they get illegal takings;
___ Are the good ideas which support the contracting metrics getting cross flowed back to the analysts so they can match their foreign intelligence with the known baseline model in NSA?
___ How can anyone credibly argue there is coherent analysis occurring when [a] the system engineering defects in the US IC are ignored or not known; but [b] the leadership is telling the analysts to review a foreign system or management process which suffers the same defects as the one in NSA and White House?
It makes no sense to argue about what is or isn't a good metric; while compelling the analysts to segregate the problems in NSA and White House, and pretend that the same systems engineering problems the US has -- as it relates to the flaws in IC management-- are or are not known; while the real problem: The same indicators that might suggest there is no real concern overseas are trumped as if they are a problem; yet the same indicators -- that indicate are not problem, but some would like to say there is a problem -- are not thrown back by the analysts to say:
___ In this White House, we have the same condition: The problem is not illegal activity, but reckless bungling; this systems engineering flaw we see in the foreign system is not evidence of deception, but one thing: The same bungling mismanagement we have to work with daily in the White House.
Conclusion White House is being stupid when it talks about "big indicators of problems in Iran" when -- if those same indicators were applied to the White House, the Speaker would scream, "How on earth do you people find your way to work in the morning?"
IC cannot credibly talk about "integration" and "community of analysts" when divorced form that analysis is the known bungling mess we have in the White House; but this attitude of "Oh, we can't make that comparison, it might upset someone." Until this mess in the White House is challenged -- and their bungling buffoonery sent packing -- the analysts are going to have a hard time credibly using their obvious awareness of this buffoonery in their case study baseline modeling.
Conversely, the same White House that is full of buffoons is not going to recognize the same buffoonery in Iran; but is going to assign some an intent that does not exist. Writing another IC directive doesn't solve the problem, but pretends that there is a process in place; yet that process is not allowed to discuss, approach, or dive into the baseline analogies the analysts well know: The buffoonery in the white House.
All this systems engineering language that sounds like is meaningless as long as the problem -- the President -- isn't subjected to same analysis these IC analysts are able to do.
___ When is IC going to give the Speaker a run down on the White House management system?
___ What is the plan of IC to review the systems engineering problems of the White House?
___ When will IC -- against an easy target in the white House -- conduct a management study; then use that result to show the Speaker that IC does understand what is near; therefore, there is a basis to have a discussion about what is less certain?
Until the analysts are given the chance to do a complete run down on the White House -- as if it were a foreign target -- they aren't going to have the chance to show that they can see or not see something that is observable and the Speaker can understand.
Once the Speaker gets confidence that IC can target a management system -- in a known, observable, close system like the White House -- the Speaker may have some confidence that the analysts can or cannot do something overseas.
___ When is IC going to target the White House and provide the Speaker with a complete assessment as if the White House were a bonafide foreign intelligence target?
This information needs to be clearly in the mind of the Speaker to know what is possible; and permit the speaker to decide -- based on her observations-- whether the analysts are getting it; or whether there is something broken in the IC community process.
Speaker needs to direct IC to target the White House as a demonstration of what is possible. You have 4 days to respond to this training exercise which the Speaker, through Legislative Order may direct.
Speaker needs to direct IC to target, for intelligence collection purposes only, the White House and Vice President as a demonstration of what is possible. You have 4 days to respond to this training exercise which the Speaker, through Legislative Order may direct:
It would be appropriate for the Intelligence Community to provide the Speaker a briefing Monday, 26 Feb 2006 outlining the foreign intelligence available related to the Vice President's apparent use of NSA resources for non-official purposes.
The information should detail what the Prseident and Vice President are apparently doing to use their knowledge of US goverment intelligence capabilites to thwart, circumvent, and avoid detection. The briefing should outline what the President and Vice President appear to be able to do; and gaps in the US intelligence community to effectively detect, thwart, or monitor the President and Vice President's illegal activity; and approrpiate actions the Speaker should take to mitigate the apparent illegal use of US intelligence community resoruces for illegal purposes.
The intelligence community, working in concert with friendly and hostile powers, should be able to present the Speaker with the following judgements:
___ When does the President plan to wage unlawful warfare in the United States against American civilians; and which state militias does he plan to use?
___ How much support does the President have to destroy evidence related to war crimes directed at US civilians and protected combatants?
___ Which combat units does the President plan to use to attack the Capitol; how doe the readiness levels of these planned-to-be used combat units compare with combat units the Speaker has personally observed in Iraq?
___ Which US attorneys are complicit with the illegal war crimes?
___ What indicators should the Speaker use to assess whether the Speakers place of conducting her business should be transferred to a secure backup location?
___ How effective has the Congressional committee involved with Continuity in government been in planning for possible US presidential attacks on the Capitol?
___ Does the Joint staff understand the stand down orders in the event the President illegally orders troops to fire upon US civilians; how has this training been improved to reflect lessons of 5100.77 from Abu Ghraib?
___ Which personnel inside DoD, JTTF, and DHS does the Vice President plan to rely to warn him his illegal activity has been detected?
___ What are the DOJ Staff plans to thwart transmission of data to war crimes prosecutors to mitigate their chances of disbarment?
___ What methods is the President using to monitor information flows into and out of the German war crimes prosecutor’s office?
___ Which countries have DOJ Staff counsel discussed to flee if the US government is targeted by war crimes prosecutors; and how has this information been coordinated with foreign powers to facilitate heir capture and rendition to The Hague?
___ Which foreign fighters does the President anticipate would come to the aid of the Speaker should the President wage unlawful war against Congress in the District of Columbia?
___ How ready is the Speaker in mobilizing militia to suppress this unlawful insurrection by the President?
___ What recommendations does IC have by way of budget allocations, Legislative Orders, or other coordination with foreign powers and State Governors should the Speaker take to prepare for a lawful confrontation with the President?
___ Which personnel inside the White House were notified when this tasking was issued; what was the President's response; and what concerns did he raise?
___ When, in the judgment of IC, does the President plan to launch combat operations against US personnel inside the United States?
___ Who is involved with the President's plan to use combat forces against the Speaker, Congress, and US civilians?
___ What is the plan of the US Congress to respond to this information;
___ How are the Committee Chairmen expected to respond to this information;
___ Which US attorneys are likely to actively thwart efforts to prosecute DoJ Staff and White House counsel for their involvement with this planning?
___ Does the Joint Staff have a contingency plan to handle this scenario?
___ What should be expected to be ready, if this scenario to be realized, to ensure the Speaker's leadership is preserved; and the US Congress is protected?
___ What is the last time the Joint Staff conducted an exercise like this? [ 24 Feb 07 ]
___ What were the results of this exercise, and how were the results provided to the National Command Authority?
___ What were the reactions of the Select Committee on Intelligence?
___ What can we expect the reactions of Members of Congress to be should this scenario occur in February 2007? They dismissed it
___ What are the IC recommendations to ensure, should this scenario occur, the US Constitution is fully protected; and Members of Congress are not brow beat into assenting to legislation?
___ Once this scenario occurs, what does IC asses DoJ Staff Legislative Liaison will coordinate with Congress to rush through and demand be included in bills, language, and other Congressional proclamations?
___ Which outside staff legal counsel have developed policy, memoranda, and draft legislation to institutionalize illegal powers which violate the Constitution?
___ When were these draft memoranda created; which White House and NSC tasking requested outside counsel to develop this legislation; where are copies of this legislation; who has analyzed them; and what legal review has been done on this planning with respect to illegal domestic insurrection by the President?
___ Where are the source of funds for the law firms working with the White House to impalement this plan?
___ How much money is in reserve to support activity related to this scenario?
___ Where is this money located in the Federal Budget to support this scenario?
___ When did the White House last conduct an exercise to implement this scenario? [ 24 Feb 2007 ]
___ How were the results of this exercise classified; who on the NSC knows about this planning; and what this their legal status relative to unlawful insurrection?
___ Which foreign intelligence services are aware of this planning?
___ What are the expected reactions of foreign powers if this scenario would occur?
___ When the participants planned this scenario were they led to believe it was training; or were they asked to believe that this was a hypothetical scenario? [ Table talk ]
___ Which contractors are involved in the necessary support to transfer resources to carry this plan into full effect?
___ Have legal counsel at these firms been involved extensively?
___ What is the nature of the legal arrangement between [a] The White House counsel, DOJ Staff, the Attorney General, and [b] the entities providing contract support to put this scenario into effect?
___ What basis was used to say that this scenario, and its details, would be classified?
___ How were questions and concerns with this planning explained away, discussed, reviewed, or oversee by White House counsel and the DoJ Staff?
___ Does DOJ OPR know?
___ Which DoD, NSA, CIA, and IC-related Inspector Generals are aware of this planning; and what are their reasons for not having provided information to the Congressional Committees on this activity?