September 2010
By Jake Pearson
NYDailyNews.com
By Jake Pearson
NYDailyNews.com
Pentagon officials bought and destroyed thousands of copies of an Army reservist’s memoir about fighting in Afghanistan over fears it revealed military secrets, a spokeswoman confirmed Saturday.
The Department of Defense trashed 9,500 copies of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer’s [left] "Operation Dark Heart" because it could harm national security, Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham told CNN."The whole premise smacks of retaliation," Shaffer, who won a Bronze Star medal while leading a black-ops team fighting the Taliban, told the network news station. "Someone buying 10,000 books to suppress a story in this digital age is ludicrous."
The Pentagon has already redacted large portions of Shaffer’s 299-page book, which is being published by St. Martin’s Press.
Pentagon officials said last month that Shaffer and his publisher didn’t get the okay to publish all the topics the soldier covers in "Dark Heart" - and took matters into their own hands last week.
Article from: nydailynews.com
Operation Dark Heart
Able Danger identified the 9/11 hijackers was picked up by the national media in August 2005. In addition to that Able Danger identified the 9/11 hijackers and was prevented from passing that information onto the FBI, the intelligence concerning Able Danger was provided to the 9/11 Commission and ignored.
Two 9/11 Commission members, Timothy J. Roemer and John F. Lehman, both claimed not to have received any information on Able Danger.
Lee H. Hamilton, former Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, and Al Felzenberg, a former spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, both denied that the 9/11 Commission had any information on the identification of Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks.
Hamilton told the media, "The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell.... Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."
Anthony Shaffer is a U.S. Army Lt. Col who has alleged that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) failed to properly evaluate intelligence on 9/11 Mohammad Atta. Shaffer's allegations subsequently became known as the Able Danger controversy. In October 2003, according to his later statement to Congress, Shaffer told the 9/11 Commission staff director, Dr. Philip D. Zelikow, that in 2000 a DIA data-mining program known as Able Danger had uncovered two of the three terrorist cells eventually implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Shaffer reportedly told Zelikow that DIA leadership declined to share this information with the FBI because military lawyers expressed concerns about the legality of doing so. Shaffer also asserted that he briefed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet on three separate occasions regarding his unit's activities. The 9/11 Commission Report did not mention Shaffer's allegations, but in 2005 and 2006 the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Rep. Curt Weldon, publicized Shaffer's allegations in public statements and hearings.
He published his memoirs as the book Operation Dark Heart. There is a plan in the Pentagon to preserve secrecy of revelations made by the book, by buying up and destroying all 10,000 copies of the book's first run.
Two 9/11 Commission members, Timothy J. Roemer and John F. Lehman, both claimed not to have received any information on Able Danger.
Lee H. Hamilton, former Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, and Al Felzenberg, a former spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, both denied that the 9/11 Commission had any information on the identification of Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks.
Hamilton told the media, "The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell.... Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."
Anthony Shaffer is a U.S. Army Lt. Col who has alleged that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) failed to properly evaluate intelligence on 9/11 Mohammad Atta. Shaffer's allegations subsequently became known as the Able Danger controversy. In October 2003, according to his later statement to Congress, Shaffer told the 9/11 Commission staff director, Dr. Philip D. Zelikow, that in 2000 a DIA data-mining program known as Able Danger had uncovered two of the three terrorist cells eventually implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Shaffer reportedly told Zelikow that DIA leadership declined to share this information with the FBI because military lawyers expressed concerns about the legality of doing so. Shaffer also asserted that he briefed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet on three separate occasions regarding his unit's activities. The 9/11 Commission Report did not mention Shaffer's allegations, but in 2005 and 2006 the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Rep. Curt Weldon, publicized Shaffer's allegations in public statements and hearings.
He published his memoirs as the book Operation Dark Heart. There is a plan in the Pentagon to preserve secrecy of revelations made by the book, by buying up and destroying all 10,000 copies of the book's first run.
Resources
Book Burning by Obama Administration
Book Burning is no longer the sole shame of Nazi Germany. On September 25, 2010, the Obama administration (through the Pentagon) burned all 9,500 first run copies of Anthony Shaffer's memoir "Operation Dark Heart".
**IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOM, PLEASE PUT THIS VIDEO ON YOUR FACEBOOK WALL, EMAIL IT TO YOUR FRIENDS, DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO GET THIS STORY OUT. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TRYING TO SQUASH THE STORY AND THE AUTHOR IS LIMITED IN HOW MUCH HE CAN SAY BECAUSE HE IS STILL A MEMBER OF THE US MILITARY RESERVES.**
Based on his experience as a Lt. Col. in the US Armed Forces, Operation Dark Heart was deemed a threat to national security after it had already passed two separate Army reviews and had already been published.
Burning books that have already been published seems like an obvious affront to free speech and seems particularly dangerous coming from the Obama administration, which has sought access to nearly every piece of American personal lives through its massive expansion of government.
This is not a right or left issue. It is not a democrat or republican issue. It is an issue of free speech and the government burning published books. It happens to have been done by a Democratic administration. If it had been done by a Republican administration, I would have made the same video criticizing that person.
If you think this story is fake, please Google "Operation Dark Heart". I wish it was fake.
The NY Times also did a great article describing the absurdity of censoring this book. The article is entitled "Secrets in Plain Sight in Censored Book's Reprint" and is available on the NY Times website.
Please also see the videos I've favorited on my channel for news coverage of this event.
My video is commentary and analysis. I'm not a news organization and I have an obvious point of view about whether governments should be in the business of burning published books.
Note: For all you mental midgets who think the video says that Obama the man actually sat somewhere and burned the Operation Dark Heart books himself and therefore this video is fake, please watch the video again. Obviously Obama the man was not physically burning books in a warehouse somewhere. I can't believe that some people are so nuts that I actually need to point that out, but after receiving several comments indicating such, I felt it easier to make that clear.
The Operation Dark Heart books were burned by the DIA, which is part of the Executive Branch and serves at the pleasure of the Defense Secretary and the Commander in Chief. The Commander in Chief is Barack Obama and the DIA Directors/Secretary of Defense/Commander in Chief are part of the Obama administration.
And Barack Obama the man is aware of the symbolism involved in government book burning. If you think he, himself, was not aware of the book burning or at least tacitly approve it, then you need to start researching what is happening in this country. It's no joke.
The New York Times reveals a few open secrets
At the New York Times, Scott Shane divulges a national security secret: the National Security Agency (shown in the Google Earth image above) is known by the nickname the Fort. I guess you’d call that the definition of hiding in plain sight since the NSA is located in Fort Meade.
Apparently anyone in the locality could tell you the NSA headquarters is known as the Fort and Shane would not know that that’s supposed to be a secret had he not obtained a copy of a banned book available on eBay.
Apparently anyone in the locality could tell you the NSA headquarters is known as the Fort and Shane would not know that that’s supposed to be a secret had he not obtained a copy of a banned book available on eBay.
That nickname is one of hundreds of supposed secrets Pentagon reviewers blacked out in the new, censored edition of an intelligence officer’s Afghan war memoir. The Defense Department is buying and destroying the entire uncensored first printing of “Operation Dark Heart,” by Anthony Shaffer, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve and former Defense Intelligence Agency officer, in the name of protecting national security.
Another supposed secret removed from the second printing: the location of the Central Intelligence Agency’s training facility — Camp Peary, Va., a fact discoverable from Wikipedia. And the name and abbreviation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, routinely mentioned in news articles. And the fact that Sigint means “signals intelligence.”
Not only did the Pentagon black out Colonel Shaffer’s cover name in Afghanistan, Chris Stryker, it deleted the source of his pseudonym: the name of John Wayne’s character in the 1949 movie “The Sands of Iwo Jima.”
The redactions offer a rare glimpse behind the bureaucratic veil that cloaks information the government considers too important for public airing.The New York Times is generous enough to provide a kind of Wikileaks teaser — a single page of the redacted and unredacted book.
Was it out of deference to St Martin’s Press or the Pentagon that the Times refrained from divulging more of the redactions?
And was the NSA so “liberal” in its use of redaction because they want to keep secret the criteria they use for defining secrecy, or because when it comes to secrecy, government officials in the post 9/11 era know that no one ever gets fired for over-classification?
Article from: warincontext.org
The few copies of the book that managed to evade the Pentagon’s dragnet are now being exchanged for up to $2,000 on the internet Photo: AP
The few copies of the book that managed to evade the Pentagon’s dragnet are now being exchanged for up to $2,000 on the internet Photo: AP
"The author has said he has fallen victim to an increased sensitivity about inside information following the release by the Wikileaks website of thousands of military documents detailing the conduct of the war, and the resignation of Gen Stanley McChrystal as US commander in Afghanistan because of disparaging comments about the Barack Obama administration made by his aides to a magazine.
Lt Col Shaffer also said that the "Pentagon wanted to shut this off until after the election", because it was "more bad news". Major congressional elections are being held on Nov 2.
In a statement, the Pentagon said it "decided to purchase copies of the first printing because they contained information which could cause damage to national security". The books were destroyed on Sep 20."
Lt Col Shaffer also said that the "Pentagon wanted to shut this off until after the election", because it was "more bad news". Major congressional elections are being held on Nov 2.
In a statement, the Pentagon said it "decided to purchase copies of the first printing because they contained information which could cause damage to national security". The books were destroyed on Sep 20."
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Able Danger - Webster Tarpley on the CIA Able Danger program
Related
Source: http://www.redicecreations.com
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário