US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Who benefits most from the DC Sniper, Anthrax Attacks, and 9/11? (english)
20 Oct 2002
The Information Awareness Office profits most from recent terror.
Who benefits most from the DC Sniper, Anthrax Attacks, and 9/11?
Author: Stephen DeVoy
October 20, 2002
Many segments of American society have benefited greatly from the atrocities
we have suffered over the last year and two months. Law enforcement, the US
Military, the national security establishment, the arms industry, the Center for
Disease Control, and defense contractors have all come out on top. George Bush
and his neo-conservative/fascist regime have won great political points as well
(though one must wonder why the reverse is not true). There is, however, one
office within the US Government and one set of defense contractors who have
benefited from each and every of the aforementioned events. Interestingly, this
one office is run by an individual previously convicted of running a government
within a government, in an illegal and clandestine project to accomplish his
president's goals, outside of the law.
Of course, we are talking about the Information
Awareness Office led by John Poindexter.
Many of the projects under the umbrella of this office predate the IAO. In fact,
workers at Cycorp of Austin, Texas were
developing tools for the Rapid
Knowledge Formation (RKF) project before 9/11 where the test domain was
"the release of biological agents" such as anthrax delivered by none
other than Osama bin Laden through Al-Qaeda.  When the Austin
American Statesman wrote an article about this, just after 9/11, Cycorp
tried to suppress the article through use of contacts at the Department of
Defense.  Subsequently, a representative of the DoD contacted the Austin
American Statesman in hope of killing the article before publication. The
Statesman published it anyway.  The Bio-Surveillance
Project and the Evidence
Extraction and Link Discovery project all predate the attacks of 9/11
construction of the IAO and now find their home within the IAO. John
Poindexter's involvement in EELD predates the IAO as well. The
foreign press howled when Poindexter was chosen to lead the IAO. Not
surprisingly, the well controlled US Media and press was largely silent.
The attacks of 9/11 put advanced detection of terrorism to the top of the
national security list of goals. The EELD project was already in progress before
9/11 and its goal was just that: to use electronic means for evidence and link
collection that would foretell of terrorist plans to engage in asymmetric
warfare against the US. The Bio-Surveillance project was underway before 9/11 as
well. The anthrax attacks not only increased US Government interest in the
project, but accelerated its deployment. The DC Sniper attacks are about to
become another boon to the IAO. We have already seen reports that large numbers
of gasoline purchase receipts are being analyzed for patterns that might
identify the sniper. Video cameras that capture every American about eight times
per day provide the raw data, but not the processing needed, to track the
movement of individuals and link individuals to other data, such as gasoline
purchases. The IAO already has four projects that could assist in this
endeavor: The Total
Information Awareness (TIA) system, EELD,
Genisys, and Human
ID at a Distance (HID).
All of this may be merely fortuitous for the IAO. The IAO does not have at
its disposal government agents that could provoke such deeds for its own
benefit. Nor is there any reason to suspect, beyond
past history, that any individual within the IAO would undertake or
encourage such illegal activities (banish the thought!). Governmental members of
the IAO do not individually profit from such projects, beyond their inflated
sense of nationalism and prestige. However, defense contractors do. While we do
not claim or even imply that various events of recent history were orchestrated
by defense contractors, we do know that history is sprinkled with many instances
of similar undertakings in foreign countries, most of which are led by fascist
governments, not much unlike what our government has become since 9/11.
Let's consider, for example, El Salvador during the early 1980's.
"Private" death squads, later found to have various governmental
connections, engaged in a campaign of terror similar to that of the DC sniper.
Sometimes they chose targets for political reasons (the American analogue would
be the choice of Lehey and Daschle as targets for the anthrax attacks). Other
times they were chosen to provoke fear and the desire for a hard governmental
fist against chaos (e.g. the DC Sniper shootings). (I remember a conversation I
had with a woman in El Salvador who stated, with respect to the violence in her
country, "What we need is a good dictatorship.") Rather than white
vans with ladders on top, the chosen death squad vehicle of the Salvadoran era
of terror was the Jeep Cherokee with tinted windows. Interestingly, it was
during this very period that Poindexter was involved in illegally supplying
Nicaragua's Contras with aid from the proceeds of arms sales to terrorists in
Iran.  (There is an arrest
warrant in Costa Rica for his activities there during this same period, as
Governments choose private means to follow illegal policies because of the
deniability that private organizations afford. The CIA regularly funds private
projects through font companies or by purchasing non-existent product from
private corporations in return for services rendered. While the only cases of
which I am personally aware were not conducted for illegal purposes, it does
establish that such channels for funding exist and are utilized. There are precedents
within the US Government for using private organizations to do what the US
Government cannot legally do. The ADL, for years, spied on American dissidents
on behalf of the FBI and exchanged information of mutual benefit.  This was
later discovered and the ADL was found liable in a US court.
We do not propose that the above is a solution to the mysteries of the past
year and two months. What we do suggest is that such avenues should be
investigated. The US press and media has found itself free to speculate about
rogue law enforcement individuals, lone nuts, and terrorists as sources for the
DC Sniper attacks, but none of them have asked the simple question, "Who
benefits?" This unwillingness to ask the obvious says much about the lack
of freedom within the American journalism industry. It's time for journalists to
go beyond their worn out replays of psychological theories and consider the
possibility that these attacks have a larger goal.
See also:
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.