Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business. The Progressive.com

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Be glad you don't know what I know!

Click to expand...

Argument from secret knowledge is a logical fallacy. Your argument holds no water whatsoever, since you won't provide any evidence to support it.

In addition, if you have a security clearance and access toclassified information, bragging about it on the internet to score cool points is a security violation. So if you're not just making stuff up to impress us maybe you should be a little more responsible and avoid discussing it in public.

Click to expand...

I enjoyed trying to incorporate the logical fallacy of 'secret knowledge' into my understanding of such and would appreciate a 'compare and contrast' with perhaps better known fallacies.

I would suggest that this poster is suffering from the same logical fallacy as the 'LEO', arguing from authority ( argumentum ad verecundiam )as a claimed government agent without recognizing that the 'implicit opposite' is a personal attack (argumentum ad hominem). "I'm a cop that knows special things that a mere citizen cannot know."

I further accuse of every poster using a non-neutral nom-de-'net of engaging the same fallacious logic. Only mere citizens have untainted authority and we all have opinions valuated only by their provenance and exposition. Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view (this last clause to excuse the invincibly ignorant from damaging their injected self-esteem).

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

I have a thesaurus too.

imported post

You don't need a thesaurus to write what you write.

You shouldn't need a thesaurus to read what I write.

We certainly don't need a thesaurus to read what your peers write.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Be glad you don't know what I know!

Click to expand...

Argument from secret knowledge is a logical fallacy. Your argument holds no water whatsoever, since you won't provide any evidence to support it.

In addition, if you have a security clearance and access toclassified information, bragging about it on the internet to score cool points is a security violation. So if you're not just making stuff up to impress us maybe you should be a little more responsible and avoid discussing it in public.

Click to expand...

I enjoyed trying to incorporate the logical fallacy of 'secret knowledge' into my understanding of such and would appreciate a 'compare and contrast' with perhaps better known fallacies.

I would suggest that this poster is suffering from the same logical fallacy as the 'LEO', arguing from authority ( argumentum ad verecundiam )as a claimed government agent without recognizing that the 'implicit opposite' is a personal attack (argumentum ad hominem). "I'm a cop that knows special things that a mere citizen cannot know."

Click to expand...

I had thought about that, I suppose arguing that you should be believed because you have access to secret knowledge is a form of arguing from authority, since your access makes you "special", but I choose to distinguish between the two for clarity.

Arguing from authority is what I see when somebody tells me "I've been doing this since..." or "I have more experience than..." or my favorite, "Because I'm in charge and Isaid so!". My favorite example of the secret knowledge fallacy is...off topic so I'll skip it.

imported post

Law Enforcement has been receiving the FBI's bulletins for years now. I've read every single one of them, and frankly some of it is pretty alarming. There are instructions on each sheet that the info is not to be disseminated to anyone besides L.E.

Click to expand...

I get a kick out of the idea that the general public would panic over what little tidbits the FBI sends out to LE.

If they want to have public support to actually do something positive, they almost have to release the information so it can be vetted by the public at large. Since it has gone out to so many LE agencies, and many are infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers, its an almost certainty that the terrorists have the bulletins.

imported post

ilbob wrote:

Law Enforcement has been receiving the FBI's bulletins for years now. I've read every single one of them, and frankly some of it is pretty alarming. There are instructions on each sheet that the info is not to be disseminated to anyone besides L.E.

Click to expand...

I get a kick out of the idea that the general public would panic over what little tidbits the FBI sends out to LE.

If they want to have public support to actually do something positive, they almost have to release the information so it can be vetted by the public at large. Since it has gone out to so many LE agencies, and many are infiltrated by terrorists sympathizers, its an almost certainty that the terrorists have the bulletins.

Click to expand...

There is a lot more than "tidbits". Much of it gets very detailed and includes names, places, and time frames. Most of the info cannot be released to the public, as this would potentially jeopardize the informants safety.

It is possible that some of the info gets out, but I doubt much is being leaked. The intel on terrorists has become far better than it was early on in the game.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

ilbob wrote:

Law Enforcement has been receiving the FBI's bulletins for years now. I've read every single one of them, and frankly some of it is pretty alarming. There are instructions on each sheet that the info is not to be disseminated to anyone besides L.E.

Click to expand...

I get a kick out of the idea that the general public would panic over what little tidbits the FBI sends out to LE.

If they want to have public support to actually do something positive, they almost have to release the information so it can be vetted by the public at large. Since it has gone out to so many LE agencies, and many are infiltrated by terrorists sympathizers, its an almost certainty that the terrorists have the bulletins.

Click to expand...

There is a lot more than "tidbits". Much of it gets very detailed and includes names, places, and time frames. Most of the info cannot be released to the public, as this would potentially jeopardize the informants safety.

It is possible that some of the info gets out, but I doubt much is being leaked. The intel on terrorists has become far better than it was early on in the game.

Click to expand...

boop...beep...boop..beep

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

expvideo wrote:

Because it's my duty as an American citizen to be on the other side, rifle in hand.

Click to expand...

Let me explain who the "other side" is. It is terrorists, abroad and homegrown.
There is a much bigger threat than most people know about.

Law Enforcement has been receiving the FBI's bulletins for years now. I've read every single one of them, and frankly some of it is pretty alarming. There are instructions on each sheet that the info is not to be disseminated to anyone besides L.E.

They contain local, national, and international news and information from covert informants. A lot of this stuff would scare the crap out of the general public. Some of it is very general, and some is precisely specific. The fact is that the FBI does not want to start a panic amongst the citizens of this country. I guess you could call it a need to know basis.

L.E. is considered the first line of defense against terrorist activity in the USA. There have been many things that street Officers have already thwarted, and the FBI feels that it will be street Cops that have the most chance of encountering/shutting down terrorist activity.

If you think that the war on terror is a made up fantasy, I can assure you that it is quite real. Be glad you don't know what I know!

Click to expand...

The first thing that comes to my mind is, "Who is a terrorist?"

The fundamentalist Islamic terrorist is the obvious and more easily defined threat.

However, beyond extreme outside forces, the line gets very blurred. Are the guys who build their own machine guns outside of government regulation and make explosives the "homegrown terrorists"? Those who realize that the government of today is a great perversion of the foundation of this country, and ready themselves to use violent means to defend the essence of the United States of America? I get the feeling that when the day comes that our LEOs are asked to go collect everyone's guns, the citizens (not subjects) who don't take kindly to that idea and shoot back will get branded as "terrorist". When any given Republicrat finally declares martial law, those who shoot back will be the "terrorist". The fear-mongering regarding terrorism is a tool of tyrants to stifle opposition under the guise of "safety".

While LE is certainly considered the first line of defense against "terrorism", that doesn't make it correct. The police, essentially, are a clean-up crew. After a crime happens, go investigate. Fishing for malum prohibitum offenders is not within their role, but is a task that has grown out of the police state. Fighting terrorism, and any threat to the country (note that I didn't say "state"), falls to the unorganized militia.

To sum things up, I'll use the cliche that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Unfotunately, life is usually not as simple as "us versus them", even though it's the cool thing in politics to make that argument. Our country was founded on dissention, a healthy dose of anti-government arguments, revolt, and terrorism, all in opposition to a tyrannical police state; it would be pissing on the graves of our founding fathers to suggest leaving the future of the country in the hands of government rather than in the hands of a "well-regulated" citizenry.

imported post

[align=left]Necropost! New article on this subject:[/align]
[align=center][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]InfraGard: An Unhealthy GovernmentAlliance[/font][/font]
[/align]
[align=center][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]by Gary D. Barnett
[/font][/font][/align]
[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]There is an organization that is quietly and secretly becoming very large and powerful. The FBI started this partnership or alliance between the federal government and the private sector in 1996 in Cleveland with a few select people. After September 11, 2001, when the general population replaced their rationality with fear, this organization, called InfraGard, continued growing, and with little notice. By 2005 more than 11,000 members were involved, but as of today, according to the InfraGard website, there are 23,682 members, including FBI personnel. At first glance, many would think this alliance healthy and useful in the fight against “terrorism,” but upon further examination, one has to wonder. [/font]


[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]InfraGard began as an alliance between the FBI and local businesses with the objective of investigating cyber threats. Since that time, little resemblance to that design exists. According to InfraGard’s own website, [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Every InfraGard chapter has an FBI special agent coordinator attached to it, and this FBI coordinator works closely with FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. Initially, while under the direction of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), the focus of InfraGard was cyberinfrastructure protection, but things have gotten much more interesting since September 11, 2001. NIPC then expanded its efforts to include physical as well as cyberthreats to critical infrastructures. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]A progression is occurring, but it gets even more interesting as time passes. In March 2003, NIPC was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security which now has total responsibility for critical infrastructure protection (CIP) matters. Part of the Department of Homeland Security’s mission is to facilitate InfraGard’s continuing role in CIP activities and to further develop InfraGard’s ability to support the FBI’s investigative mission, especially as it pertains to counterterrorism and cyber crimes. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]InfraGard’s stated goal “is to promote ongoing dialogue and timely communications between members and the FBI.” Pay attention to this next part: [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]I take from this statement that there is a distinct tradeoff, a tradeoff not available to the rest of us, whereby InfraGard members are privy to inside information from government to protect themselves and their assets; in return they give the government information it desires. This is done under the auspices of preventing terrorism and other crimes. Of course, as usual, “other crimes” is not defined, leaving us to guess just what information is being transferred. Since these members of InfraGard are people in positions of power in the “private” sector, people who have access to a massive amount of private information about the rest of us, just what information are they divulging to government? Remember, they are getting valuable consideration in the form of advance warnings and protection for their lives and assets from government. This does not an honest partnership make; quite the contrary. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]In my article “The New Crime of Thinking,” I criticized H.R.1955 and Senate 1959, which, if passed, will literally criminalize thought against government. As usual, the exact type of thought is left undefined. This vagueness in the thought-crime legislation together with the secrecy of InfraGard makes for a dangerous combination. S.1959, if passed, will be attached to the Homeland Security Act and InfraGard is already a part of the Department of Homeland Security. This is not a coincidence. Under section 899b of S.1959 it is stated: [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]This appears to be a direct reference to the InfraGard program. Moreover, in section 899c of S.1959 the new commission created after passage is to build upon and bring together the work of other entities, and will establish, as designated under 899d, a “Center of Excellence.” This center will be university-based, and is to study “violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism” in the United States. According to InfraGard’s mission statement, it is a group of businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement, and other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence. Keep in mind that this new center will be, and InfraGard already is, a part of the Department of Homeland Security. I’m just speculating, of course, but is it possible that InfraGard will be a domestic police and spying arm for the government concerning “thought crime”? [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]There is a definite and natural link here, and it should give us pause. The definitions concerning thought crime are vague and unclear, left to the interpretation of government only. InfraGard, on the other hand, is an organization cloaked in secrecy. It holds secret meetings with the FBI. It also, according to FBI Director Robert Mueller, shares information (what information, we don’t know) with the Secret Service and all government agencies involved with security in the United States. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]One question on InfraGard’s application for membership is, Which critical infrastructures does your organization belong to? Some choices listed are defense, government, banking and finance, information and telecommunications, postal and shipping, transportation, public health, and energy. At least 350 of the Fortune 500 companies have representation in InfraGard, this according to their website. These representatives have access to most of our private records, including phone and Internet use, health records, and banking and finance records. Considering the recent attempts by President Bush and his administration to protect many telecommunications companies and executives from prosecution for releasing private information, how many of the top telecom executives are members of InfraGard? I, for one, would be very interested in this information, but alas, it is not public information; it is secret. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]According to InfraGard’s own policies and procedures, [/font]
[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]This means that no one outside InfraGard is to know who is a member unless previous approval has been given. In addition, when interviews with members of the press are forthcoming, all questions should be submitted in writing prior to the interview. The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the character of the answers, and identify the appropriate person to be interviewed prior to the interview. Even demeanor is addressed in this directive, and strict guidelines for behavior are listed. You see, when I said secret, I wasn’t kidding. [/font]



[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]The bottom line is this: This is an organization created by the FBI, sanctioning individuals from the private business sector to provide information, sensitive and private information, to government agencies for special concessions. These concessions, or favors, according to an article titled “The FBI Deputizes Business,” in The Progressive magazine, include advance warning on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism. InfraGard notes as much on their website by advertising for members “access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards and much more.” Also advertised: “Learn time-sensitive, infrastructure related security information from government sources such as DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and the FBI.” Is this elitist group of InfraGard members a group of Americans superior to the rest of us? Are they truly privileged or just selling their souls for protection and favors? And how involved will they be in watchdog activities, activities sanctioned by the U.S. government? Is this a new kind of conscription by government meant to increase its surveillance capabilities so that it can monitor our lives even more than it does now? [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Legislation, bureaucracies, and government/business partnerships created since 9/11 have severely infringed our freedom. Almost all of the so-called terror-protection legislation has been linked – and in many cases it is linked – to increased government oversight of the rest of us. This is evident concerning InfraGard and the Department of Homeland Security. If this program is for the benefit of this country, why are the members’ names and their activities kept so secret? Why do some gain protection and early warning while the rest of us do not? And what information and “intelligence” is being shared? Since these business members are fully protected by government, how far will they go, and when will it be too late to stop this secret assault by this behemoth we call government? [/font]




[align=right][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]February 23, 2008[/font][/align]

[align=left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.[/font][/align]

[align=left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Copyright © 2008 Future of Freedom Foundation [/font][/align]

imported post

Not 'necropost' but update and contrary to what the DHS lickspittle LEOs and Johns would have us do/believe.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Anyone who denies that we have "secret police" in this country has his head deeply buried up his ass.

imported post

Gary D. Barnett wrote:

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Moreover, in section 899c of S.1959 the new commission created after passage is to build upon and bring together the work of other entities, and will establish, as designated under 899d, a “Center of Excellence.” This center will be university-based, and is to study “violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism” in the United States.[/font]

Click to expand...

Hmpf. Passing more and more legislation to control all aspects of Americans' lives under the auspices of "safety" while pissing on the Constitution, and reducing the terms "liberty" and "freedom" to mere rhetoric while ensuring that new generations of Americans know neither. I don't think it takes too much thought to study "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." Unless by "study", they means "find ways to suppress."

Good article, though it won't do much to persuade those who denounce those who are suspicious of government as "tin-foil hat wearers".

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Gary D. Barnett wrote:

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Moreover, in section 899c of S.1959 the new commission created after passage is to build upon and bring together the work of other entities, and will establish, as designated under 899d, a “Center of Excellence.” This center will be university-based, and is to study “violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism” in the United States.[/font]

Click to expand...

Hmpf. Passing more and more legislation to control all aspects of Americans' lives under the auspices of "safety" while pissing on the Constitution, and reducing the terms "liberty" and "freedom" to mere rhetoric while ensuring that new generations of Americans know neither. I don't think it takes too much thought to study "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." Unless by "study", they means "find ways to suppress."

Good article, though it won't do much to persuade those who denounce those who are suspicious of government as "tin-foil hat wearers".

Click to expand...

It's interesting that it's considered okay to "study" the causes of home-grown radicalism, but if you ask them why they don't want to study the causes of radical Islam, you get a moronic answer like, "I don't care why they hate us! I just want to kill them!"

You can bet the folks at the "Center of Excellence" will not be studying the reasons why people start viewing the government as an adversary; rather, they will be studying means of suppressing such movements by propaganda and force. Instead of looking inward to determine where the government has gone astray, they will look to their fellow Americans and eye them with suspicion and as enemies.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP You can bet the folks at the "Center of Excellence" will not be studying the reasons why people start viewing the government as an adversary;

Click to expand...

Which tells us all we need to know about that bunch.

The old saw, "Actions speak louder than words" applies.