Homeland Security

NSA Boundless Informant explicated - for moar efficient flat databases of all yr phone records

Just had to crosspost this relatively down-to-earth explanation of how all the cell phone data is hoarded in the NSA mass data mining system. What this lacks in documentation it makes up for with relative plausibility & general lack of fancifulness.
SOURCE: Cryptome.org : http://cryptome.org/2013/11/nsa-boundless-informant-explicated.htm

25 November 2013

NSA BOUNDLESS INFORMANT Explicated


Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:37:33 -0800 (PST)
From: xxxxx[at]efn.org
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Subject: A very interesting forum post on electrospaces

This was written from a person who purports to actually use the Boundless Informant tool. The email address is fake of course, but it sounds both knowledgeable and credible.

If the source is genuine, it provides considerable insight into the use and capabilities of the tool. It seems to do a lot more than we've seen so far, including the ability to see individual call detail records.

It also gives us clues to how mobile interception is accomplished.

http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2013/11/screenshots-from-boundlessinformant-
can.html

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4559002410879446409&postID=
2273467319728111778&isPopup=true

---------------------------

Anonymous jbond@MI5.mil.gov.uk said...

I'm seeing a great deal of confusion out there about NSA databases and how reports are generated from their architecture. Here is how it works:

Let's begin with rows and columns making up a matrix, variously called a table, array, grid, flatfile database, or spreadsheet. In the database world, rows are called records, columns are called fields, and the individual boxes specified by row and column coordinates -- which hold the actual data -- are called cells.

For cell phone metadata, each call generates one record. NSA currently collects 13 fields for that call, such as To, From, IMEI, IMSI, Time, Location, CountryOrigin, Packet etc etc, primarily from small Boeing DRTBOXs placed on or near cell towers.

Because metadata from a single call can be intercepted multiple times along its path, generating duplicative records, NSA runs an ingest filtering tool to reduce redundancy, which is possible but not trivial because metadata acquisitions may not be entirely identical (eg timing). After this refinement, one call = one metadata record = one row x 13 columns in the BOUNDLESS INFORMANT's matrix.

Cell phone metadata is structured, unlike content (he said she said). However, as collected from various provider SIGADs, it is not cleanly or consistently structured -- see the messy example at wikipedia IMSI. So another refinement is needed: NSA programmers write many small extractors to get the metadata out of its various native protocols into the uniformly formatted taut database fields that it wants.

After all this, for a hundred calls, a metadata database such as BOUNDLESS INFORMANT consists of 100 records and 13 fields so 100 x 13 = 1300 cells. A counting field (all 1's) and consecutive serial numbers (indexing field) for each record may be added to facilitate report generation and linkage to other databases, see below.

-1- The first point of confusion is between BOUNDLESS INFORMANT as a flatfile database (we've never seen a single row, column or cell of it) and the one-page summary reports that can be generated using BOUNDLESS INFORMANT as the driving database (eg, the Norway slide).

These BOUNDLESS INFORMANT reports give the number of records (rows) in the table after various filters have been applied (eg country, 1EF = one end foreign, specified month, DNR type, intercept technology used, legal authority cited FISA vs FAA vs EO 12333).

BOUNDLESS INFORMANT does NOT report the number of cells nor gigabytes of storage taken up. It easily could, but it doesn't. Instead, it reports the main object of interest: the number of calls, after some filtering scheme has been applied.

-2- The second point of confusion arises over database viewing options. Myself, I like scrolling down row after row, page after page, plain black text in 8 pt courier font, lots of records per screen, thin lines separating cells, no html tables. A lot of people don't.

So a cottage industry has evolved around generating pretty monitor displays, web pages, and ppts from databases; these typically display one record per screen. All database views are equivalent: given a presentation, you can recover the database; given the database, you can make the pretty user interface.

Views are dressed up injecting the data fields into a fixed but fancy template (eg dept of motor vehicles putting your picture field into an antique wood frame and your name field into drop-shadow text). Nothing but a warmed-over version of spewing out form letters by mail-merging an address database into a letter template.

We've not seen *any* view of BOUNDLESS INFORMANT records to date, only summary reports it has generated. You cannot recover the underlying database from a few summary reports, only information about the number of records and a few of the 13 fields.

November 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Anonymous jbond@MI5.mil.gov.uk said...

-3- The third point of confusion: a given database like BOUNDLESS INFORMANT is capable of self-generating many summary reports about itself. Summary reports can have views too -- injections into templates. We've seen 3 of them for BOUNDLESS INFORMANT, Aggregate, DNI and DNR.

Databases can be sorted, according to the values in any column. For example, if NSA sorted by IMSI, that would pull together all the call records made from a particular cell phone with that id. Using the counting field, allowing the activity of each phone to be tallied. Or they could sort to pull up the least active phones-- to identify the user who tosses her 'burner' phones in the trash after one use.

Databases can be restricted. If NSA wanted to count the number of distinct cell phone calls during a given month that originated in Norway and terminated abroad (1EF one end foreign), it can restrict the records to the relevant time and location fields, masking out the others. They could compress each cell phone to a single line and count rows to get summary data on the number of phones doing 1EF. That summary data could be injected into a template for a BOUNDLESS INFORMANT slide.

Databases can be queried (tasked) to pull out only those records satisfying some string of selector logic. For example, you could submit a FOIA request to NSA in the form of a query that consisted of your selectors and a database like BOUNDLESS INFORMANT to see what call metadata they have on you in storage.

Here you would be wise to request simple output (rows of plain text with column values separated by commas,CSV format), to keep file size down. Then you could make your own mail-merge templates and spew out colorful BOUNDLESS INFORMANT graphs and reports about yourself, or just use the default templates provided by Excel.

November 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Anonymous jbond@MI5.gov.uk said...

-4- Next up on confusion, relational databases. NSA maintains hundreds of separate flatfile databases that might however share a field or two in common, for example someone texting, google searching, or shopping as well as making phone calls with with a given phone, the number or IMSI being the common field.

Those other activities involve different fields from those already in BOUNDLESS INFORMANT, such as your login to eBay or search term text instead of email subject line.

It could all be put into BOUNDLESS INFORMANT by expanding the number of fields. However this doesn't scale very well : it results in the voice call fields being massively blank for an IMSI making lots of google searches, creating a huge sparse table that is very slow to process, wasting analysts time (called high latency by NSA).

Instead, BOUNDLESS INFORMANT will just link to all the other databases which share a field. And those in turn could link to other simple databases sharing some other field that BOUNDLESS INFORMANT might lack. And so on -- it's how all the little constituent databases can be seamlessly integrated..

A query now calls through to this whole federation of linked databases, which can reside geographically anywhere on the Five Eyes network (though NSA is moving to one stop shopping from their Bluffdale cloud to improve security and reduce latency).

The primary provider of relational database software of this complexity is Oracle. However you can do about all of it free and friendly with open source MySQL. The Q is for querying -- what NSA calls tasking -- sending off some long-winded boolean logic string of field selector values and constituent databases that does the filtering you want.

The result of the query is a new little database, usually temporary, that you can use to generate fancy views and summary reports. The databases being updated continuously and storage retention varying, the same query tomorrow will give a slightly different outcome.

Your all-about-me FOIA request could be formulated in MySQL (first need to know names of linked databases) and surprisingly, the query string would be recognized and fulfilled by Oracle or whatever big relational database NSA ended up using/developing, it's that standardized.

If you're online or call a lot, that could still be a big file given 12 agencies keeping tabs, notably NSA, Homeland Security, and FBI's DITU. But if you wrote the query right, it would only take a small data center in the garage to host the response.

November 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM

BREAKING: NSA whistleblower Russ Tice says Obama spied on by NSA; Colin Powell's telecoms tracked by NSA satellite tech

///// UPDATE Friday 2pm Central: Tice got squelched by shady NBC lawyers at the last second according to BoilingFrogsPost.com:

Today MSNBC aired an interview with Mr. Tice disclosing “some” of his revelations, thanks to the vigilant activists who tirelessly shared and disseminated Mr. Tice’s revelations and interview audio. Interestingly, at the last minute, MSNBC told Mr. Tice that they would NOT include his revelations on NSA’s targeting of Obama, elected officials, attorneys, judges and activists. Basically, they censored his entire testimony on these stunning allegations!
In a correspondence with Boiling Frogs Post immediately following his censored interview with MSNBC Mr. Tice stated: “When they were placing the ear-phone in my ear with less than ten minutes left till my air time, the producer in New York said that their lawyers were discussing the material, and at this time, they did not want me to mention anything about the NSA wiretaps against all the people and organizations that I mentioned. That is how it went down. I did say on the air that I know it is much worse and would like to talk about that some time.”
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/21/msnbc-censors-nsa-whistleblow...

The heat is on and the squirrels are getting squirrelly!!! /////

shit-just-got-real.jpg

Been waiting to hear more material from Russ Tice, one of the earlier NSA whistleblowers. Fortunately one of our ol' underdogs BoilingFrogsPost.com & Sibel Edmonds got Tice to lay out a lot of new stuff. Tice was a major source for NSA revelations including the 2005 NY Times warrantless wiretapping story.

Named NSA targets by Tice include current Supreme Court Justice Alito, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Rep. Henry Waxman, then-Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, then-US Rep. Kucinich. And of course President Obama.

Here is a quick clip: via very big on FiredogLake: BREAKING: NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Alleges NSA Wiretapped Then-Sen. Candidate Barack Obama | MyFDL

In this bombshell episode of the Boiling Frogs Post Podcast Show NSA whistleblower Russ Tice joins us to go on record for the first time with new revelations and the names of official culprits involved in the NSA’s illegal practices. Mr. Tice explains in detail how the National Security Agency targets, sucks-in, stores and analyzes illegally obtained content from the masses in the United States. He contradicts officials and the mainstream media on the status of the NSA’s Utah facility, which is already operating and “On-Line.” He reveals the NSA as a Deep State that targets and wiretaps US political candidates for its own purposes. We discuss the latest controversies involving the NSA, PRISM, Edward Snowden, and the spins and lies that are being floated by the US mainstream and pseudo-alternative media. Do NOT miss this revelatory interview.

Listen to the preview Here - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleb...

DOWNLOAD HERE > http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/podpress_trac/web/20927/0/BF.0112.Tice_2... - you may want to skip to about 50 minutes to catch the name dropping space spying going on.

bfp_podcast_version.gif"Here's the big one ... this was in summer of 2004, one of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something-year-old wannabe senator for Illinois," he said. "You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives right now would you? It's a big white house in Washington, D.C. That's who they went after, and that's the president of the United States now."

There was a lot of specific references to space-based platforms - that is National Security Agency satellite technology - which was Tice's specialty to which he has now apparently turned The Blowtorch with excellent timing.

The story is getting out now. Bush-era whistleblower: Obama was NSA wiretap victim in 2004 | The Daily Caller. Huffpo did a quick post: Russ Tice, Bush-Era Whistleblower, Claims NSA Ordered Wiretap Of Barack Obama In 2004. Duly flagged on Cryptogon: Russ Tice on Boiling Frogs Podcast

Iran's press service flagged it: PressTV - NSA spied on Obama: Whistleblower

At the Guardian: Procedures used by NSA to target non-US persons: Exhibit A – full document | World news | guardian.co.uk && Revealed: the top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant | World news | guardian.co.uk

Vast discretion vested in NSA analysts -- Glenn Greenwald http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

The vast amount of discretion vested in NSA analysts is also demonstrated by the training and briefings given to them by the agency. In one such briefing from an official with the NSA’s general counsel’s office – a top secret transcript of which was obtained by the Guardian, dated 2008 and then updated for 2013 – NSA analysts are told how much the new Fisa law diluted the prior standards and how much discretion they now have in deciding whose communications to intercept:

“The court gets to look at procedures for saying that there is a reasonable belief for saying that a target is outside of the United States. Once again – a major change from the targeting under Fisa. Under Fisa you had to have probable cause to believe that the target was a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Here all you need is a reasonable belief that the target is outside of the United States …

“Now, all kinds of information can be used to this end. There’s a list in the targeting procedures: phone directories, finished foreign intelligence, NSA technical analysis of selectors, lead information. Now, you don’t have to check a box in every one of those categories. But you have to look at everything you’ve got and make a judgment. Looking at everything, do you have a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States? So, cast your search wide. But don’t feel as though you have to have something in every category. In the end, what matters is, ‘Does all that add up to a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States?’”

So vast is this discretion that NSA analysts even have the authority to surveil communications between their targets and their lawyers, and that information can be not just stored but also disseminated. NSA procedures do not ban such interception, but rather set forth procedures to be followed in the event that the NSA analyst believes they should be “disseminated”.

The decisions about who has their emails and telephone calls intercepted by the NSA is made by the NSA itself, not by the Fisa court, except where the NSA itself concludes the person is a US citizen and/or the communication is exclusively domestic. But even in such cases, the NSA often ends up intercepting those communications of Americans without individualized warrants, and all of this is left to the discretion of the NSA analysts with no real judicial oversight.

Also: FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time | Techdirt

And: Skype Provided Backdoor Access to the NSA Before Microsoft Takeover [NYT]

Plus: Straight Outta Government: GSA Mulls Deal With Rap Genius - Nextgov.com (wat?)

And: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S. | McClatchy

Wowww… busy days people. It's amazing to see a suppressed narrative like the NSA domestic spying apparatus suddenly catch such traction in so many quarters!

The other heinous thing - well one other thing - is the secret TPP treaty. I'm glad reelected Rep. Alan Grayson is going to kick at it. First Congressman Allowed to Read Secret Treaty Says “This ... Hands The Sovereignty of Our Country Over to Corporate Interests” | Zero Hedge

The TPP is nicknamed “NAFTA on steroids.” Now that I’ve read it, I can see why. I can’t tell you what’s in the agreement, because the U.S. Trade Representative calls it classified. But I can tell you two things about it.

1) There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.

2) This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.

3) What they can’t afford to tell the American public is that [the rest of this sentence is classified].

……..

It is ironic in a way that the government thinks it's alright to have a record of every single call that an American makes, but not alright for an American citizen to know what sovereign powers the government is negotiating away.

***

Having seen what I’ve seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty. And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that’s fair to say from what I’ve seen so far. But I’m not allowed to tell you why!

Also: Warren on Trans-Pacific Partnership: If people knew what was going on, they would stop it | The Raw Story

Alright leaving this here for now. Get tuned in and look around - the truth is out there! SAIC, Booz Allen Hamilton, the grip of your sorts on all our lives is in for its createst challenge yet. The infosec praetorians are overdue for a fall in their space-age egos!

Make Great Hack Cartel: CyberWar Afloat!! DIB to 2511 Wiretap All Da Networks! SAIC signs deal with Homeland Security, to get Feds' classified hoarded zero-day exploits

"10 providers serve 80 percent of the market. We have classified relationships with a good number of them." -- US Rep Mike Rogers, reminding us how the government creates cartel structures [source Reuters]

One of the more interesting news elements concerns how the federal goverment is going to hand out teh very tastiest candy to contractors - specifically SAIC it now appears - in the form of classified undisclosed hacker attack goodies.

Interestingly AT&T would get get very very important info about vulnerabilities on Apple and other major corporate rivals, providing them with a colossal competitive edge in the so-called "marketplace".

Basically you have the introduction of a cartel system for hacking, reminiscent perhaps of the cartel system for distributing drugs so profitably for the powers-that-be. And of course Homeland Security in the middle, the keystone.

The government/contractor class is entering a more demented, less sound phase of the information age by hoarding important software bugs instead of getting them fixed.

Foreign spooks will surely get their hands on tons of hacks and way more systems will end up getting seriously assaulted. Putting up large cash bounties for responsible disclosure (i.e. telling people who can issue security patches to the public, then telling the public) is almost certainly a better way to approach the problem.

This current policy direction will probably cause far more havoc on the Internet than it will prevent, shocking an outcome as that may be.

Executive Order -- Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity | The White House

[...] Sec. 2. Critical Infrastructure. As used in this order, the term critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.[......]

Sec. 4. Cybersecurity Information Sharing. (a) It is the policy of the United States Government to increase the volume, timeliness, and quality of cyber threat information shared with U.S. private sector entities so that these entities may better protect and defend themselves against cyber threats. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the "Secretary"), and the Director of National Intelligence shall each issue instructions consistent with their authorities and with the requirements of section 12(c) of this order to ensure the timely production of unclassified reports of cyber threats to the U.S. homeland that identify a specific targeted entity. The instructions shall address the need to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, operations, and investigations.

(b) The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a process that rapidly disseminates the reports produced pursuant to section 4(a) of this order to the targeted entity. Such process shall also, consistent with the need to protect national security information, include the dissemination of classified reports to critical infrastructure entities authorized to receive them. The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a system for tracking the production, dissemination, and disposition of these reports.

(c) To assist the owners and operators of critical infrastructure in protecting their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or harm, the Secretary, consistent with 6 U.S.C. 143 and in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, shall, within 120 days of the date of this order, establish procedures to expand the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program to all critical infrastructure sectors. This voluntary information sharing program will provide classified cyber threat and technical information from the Government to eligible critical infrastructure companies or commercial service providers that offer security services to critical infrastructure.

(d) The Secretary, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program created under Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities), shall expedite the processing of security clearances to appropriate personnel employed by critical infrastructure owners and operators, prioritizing the critical infrastructure identified in section 9 of this order.

/////

So "critical infrastructure" includes plenty of big corporate interests and anything that would affect their economic well-being is a threat. As always, regulations which make institutions more permanent, as opposition to the "critical" elements of society becomes blended with "terrorism".

U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance | Politics and Law - CNET News - April 24, Declan McCullaugh (who probably doesn't talk to sources on the f&!!ing telephone that much these days)

Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

Those documents show the National Security Agency and the Defense Department were deeply involved in pressing for the secret legal authorization, with NSA director Keith Alexander participating in some of the discussions personally. Despite initial reservations, including from industry participants, Justice Department attorneys eventually signed off on the project.

The Justice Department agreed to grant legal immunity to the participating network providers in the form of what participants in the confidential discussions refer to as "2511 letters," a reference to the Wiretap Act codified at 18 USC 2511 in the federal statute books.

The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent." An industry representative told CNET the 2511 letters provided legal immunity to the providers by agreeing not to prosecute for criminal violations of the Wiretap Act. It's not clear how many 2511 letters were issued by the Justice Department.

In 2011, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn publicly disclosed the existence of the original project, called the DIB Cyber Pilot, which used login banners to inform network users that monitoring was taking place. In May 2012, the pilot was turned into an ongoing program -- broader but still voluntary -- by the name of Joint Cybersecurity Services Pilot, with the Department of Homeland Security becoming involved for the first time. It was renamed again to Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program in January, and is currently being expanded to all types of companies operating critical infrastructure.

//////

So you have a pilot program that covered the "Defense Industrial Base" or DIB. The security measures used to keep tabs on contractor computers are now rolled out across the interwebs. More on DIB below.

But military-style wiretapping America with fancy 2511 loopholes isn't enough! Let's hand out hacks too! Not surprisingly the NSA's main digital plumbing people, specifically SAIC, are jumping aboard the classified Goodie Gravy train.

//////

SAIC, Inc. : SAIC Signs Agreement With Department of Homeland Security To Be A Commercial Service Provider

05/15/2013| 04:10pm US/Eastern

MCLEAN, Va., May 15, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) (NYSE: SAI) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) program to become a Commercial Service Provider (CSP) of approved ECS services that will strengthen protection of U.S. critical infrastructure against imminent cyber attacks. In accordance with the MOA, SAIC is developing the capability and security certifications to utilize threat indicators for securing critical infrastructure customers against cyber threats.

Securing the Future is a guiding mission for SAIC. For decades, SAIC professionals have served the U.S. government and corporate America with expertise and technology to better protect our citizens, our military and our networks. SAIC is currently collaborating with community leaders and building key technologies and architectures that enable trusted sharing of threat information in real-time to protect against both the known and unknown threat landscape.

ECS is a voluntary information sharing program that assists critical infrastructure owners and operators as they improve the protection of their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or data exfiltration. DHS works with cybersecurity organizations from across the federal government to gain access to a broad range of sensitive and classified cyber threat information. DHS develops indicators based on this information and shares them with qualified CSPs, thus enabling them to better protect their customers who are critical infrastructure entities.

Key Quotes:

John Thomas, National Security Sector Acting President
"We must work together to protect our infrastructure, our economy, and our security from cyber attacks. If we don't work together, we won't succeed. This is why SAIC is proud to be a part of this endeavor to share valuable threat information between government and critical infrastructure providers."

Julie Taylor, Cybersecurity Operation Manager for National Security Services
"This collaboration between SAIC and DHS puts in place a new approach to threat sharing across public and private sectors that offers a positive shift in the threat landscape. Each step we take to cultivate our cyber ecosystem with trusted information sharing relationships will have a direct return on stabilizing our national security and our economy. Now that the doors of communication are open, we can further the cyber mission with valuable action as a team. "

David Lacquement, Cybersecurity Program Director
"As a former government executive in cyber threat management, I have seen firsthand the immense value that threat information sharing at network speed can offer to sustaining trusted channels for online transactions and communications. This public-private collaboration is strategically vital to significantly raising the level of cyber awareness, vigilance, and protection across our nation's critical infrastructure."

About SAIC
SAIC is a FORTUNE 500(®) scientific, engineering, and technology applications company that uses its deep domain knowledge to solve problems of vital importance to the nation and the world, in national security, energy and the environment, critical infrastructure, and health. The Company's approximately 40,000 employees serve customers in the U.S. Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, other U.S. Government civil agencies and selected commercial markets. Headquartered in McLean, Va., SAIC had annual revenues of approximately $11.2 billion for its fiscal year ended January 31, 2013. For more information, visit www.SAIC.com. SAIC: From Science to Solutions®

Statements in this announcement, other than historical data and information, constitute forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause our actual results, performance, achievements, or industry results to be very different from the results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Some of these factors include, but are not limited to, the risk factors set forth in SAIC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2013, and other such filings that SAIC makes with the SEC from time to time. Due to such uncertainties and risks, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof.

Contact: Melissa Koskovich Jennifer Gephart

(703) 676-6762 (703) 676-6389

Melissa.l.koskovich@saic.com Jennifer.a.gephart@saic.com

SOURCE SAIC

/////

Here is the Department of Homeland Security page on it: Enhanced Cybersecurity Services | Homeland Security. See also Office of Cybersecurity and Communications and Stakeholder Engagement and Cyber Infrastructure Resilience. I wonder if someone gets applause for these titles, whew...

Enhanced Cybersecurity Services

Protecting critical infrastructure against growing and evolving cyber threats requires a layered approach. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) actively collaborates with public and private sector partners every day to respond to and coordinate mitigation efforts against attempted disruptions and adverse impacts to the nation’s critical cyber and communications networks and infrastructure.

As the federal government’s lead agency for coordinating the protection, prevention, mitigation, and recovery from cyber incidents, DHS works regularly with business owners and operators to strengthen their facilities and communities. To accomplish this, the DHS Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) program was expanded in February 2013 by Executive Order - Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.

ECS is a voluntary information sharing program that assists critical infrastructure owners and operators as they improve the protection of their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or data exfiltration. DHS works with cybersecurity organizations from across the federal government to gain access to a broad range of sensitive and classified cyber threat information. DHS develops indicators based on this information and shares them with qualified Commercial Service Providers (CSPs), thus enabling them to better protect their customers who are critical infrastructure entities. ECS augments, but does not replace, an entities’ existing cybersecurity capabilities.

The ECS program does not involve government monitoring of private networks or communications. Under the ECS program, information relating to threats and malware activities detected by the CSPs is not directly shared between the critical infrastructure CSP customers and the government. However, when a CSP customer voluntarily agrees, the CSP may share limited and anonymized information with ECS. See the Privacy Impact Assessment below for more details.

Critical Infrastructure Entities

Most critical infrastructure entities already utilize cybersecurity providers to protect their networks. The ECS program offers an enhanced approach to protecting these entities by supplementing existing services and commercial capabilities with U.S. Government cyber threat information. This approach supports the delivery of enhanced capabilities to eligible participants from all sectors.

Participation in the program is voluntary and is designed to protect government intelligence, corporate information security, and the privacy of participants, while enhancing the security of critical infrastructure. Validated entities from all critical infrastructure sectors are eligible to participate in the ECS program and receive ECS services from qualified CSPs.

To learn more about becoming a validated critical infrastructure entity, please contact the ECS Program Management Office at ECS_Program@HQ.DHS.gov.

Commercial Service Providers

CSPs receive threat information from DHS and use it to offer specified services to their critical infrastructure customers in a secure environment in order to ensure the security of government furnished information.

CSPs deliver services to eligible customers through commercial relationships. The ECS program is not involved in establishing the commercial relationships between CSPs and validated critical infrastructure entities. As of February 2013, the following CSPs are approved to provide ECS services to critical infrastructure entities:

DHS is working with several additional providers who seek to offer enhanced cybersecurity services to entities. To learn about becoming a CSP, please contactECS_Program@HQ.DHS.gov.

Sector Specific Agencies

Sector Specific Agencies (SSAs) and DHS form a critical partnership within the ECS program. The role of the SSA is to leverage existing relationships with critical infrastructure entities to expand and improve ECS. The SSA is also responsible for helping to characterize risks and threats unique to critical infrastructure entities in their respective sectors. This characterization will enable the federal government to deliver the most effective indicators relevant to ECS protected entities based upon the unique threat environment of their sector. SSAs also serve as a vital conduit to DHS for data leading to requirements that will drive the development of ECS program capabilities.

Privacy and Civil Liberties

DHS embeds and enforces privacy protections and transparency in all its activities and uses the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) to assess and mitigate any impact on an individual’s privacy.   DHS has conducted and published a Privacy Impact Assessment for the ECS program. DHS also ensures that ECS and all of its cybersecurity activities are structured in a way that ensures individual rights are protected.

Contact Information

For more information, contact ECS_Program@HQ.DHS.gov.

//////

Once you poke around on FedBizOpps.gov a little bit it's easier to see how they blow so much money in DC.

Fun FEMA Pork tangent: Here are some FEMA satellite phone sole source contract. On the one hand, it's good someone has a satellite phone in emergencies, but someone is profiting off this sale...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4a1af0e4e2942226816...

FEMA seeks to acquire on an other than full and open competition basis MSAT satellite terminals. These terminals are primarily utilized in Disaster Operations for mission critical communications within FEMA, as well as for communicating with strategic partners to support disasters. There is currently only one commercial satellite operator in North America offering two-way radio, push-to-talk (PTT) capability integrated with telephone. This feature makes it possible to communicate with another terminal in a specific talk group anywhere in CONUS. Authority is FAR 6.302-1 The anticipated period of performance is for one year. THIS NOTICE OF INTENT IS NOT A REQUEST FOR COMPETITIVE QUOTES. NO TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL BE ACCEPTED. A determination by the Government not to compete this acquisition based upon responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government.

Contracting Office Address:

500 C Street SW

Patriots Plaza -- 5th Floor

Washington, District of Columbia 20472

United States

Primary Point of Contact.:

Christine Thomas

christine.thomas@associates.fema.dhs.gov

/////

Anyway here is the Reuters story central to this whole turn of narrative, a new system "Outside of the Military Industrial Complex" indeed.

REUTERS: Government to Share Cyber Security Information with Private Sector - By Joseph Menn | May 15, 2013

SOURCE http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/05/15/292065.htm

The U.S. government will use classified information about software vulnerabilities for the first time to protect companies outside of the military industrial complex, top officials told Reuters this week.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that a system being developed to scan Internet traffic headed toward critical businesses would block attacks on software programs that the general population does not realize are possible.

“It is a way to share information about known vulnerabilities that may not be commonly available,” Napolitano said at the Reuters Cybersecurity Summit in Washington, D.C.

The information would come from “a variety of sources” including intelligence agencies, she said on Tuesday.

The National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies develop and acquire knowledge about software flaws in order to penetrate overseas networks. Until now, there has been no straightforward way for these agencies to share that classified data with U.S. companies outside the defense sector, even though those companies could become victims of cyber attacks.

The plan is to discreetly share the data through what the government calls Enhanced Cybersecurity Services. Under a February presidential order, those services will be offered by telecommunications and defense companies to utilities, banks and other critical infrastructure companies that choose to pay for them.

Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security will take the information from the NSA and other sources, and relay it to service providers with security clearances. The service providers would then use these “attack signatures” – such as Internet routing data and content associated with known adversary groups – to screen out malicious traffic.

Napolitano’s comments were the first disclosure that the screening would also cover attacks on software using methods known to the government that have not been disclosed to the software manufacturers or buyers.

While U.S. intelligence agencies have at times warned software manufacturers, such as Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc., or Homeland Security officials of specific, declassified problems, the new system will be machine-to-machine and far more rapid.

It reflects the realization that many espionage attacks from overseas are aimed at the private sector and that future destructive attacks may arrive the same way. (Classified attack signatures have been used to protect defense manufacturers under a Pentagon program.)

House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said he was glad about the plan to share more broadly information about vulnerabilities, while maintaining control of the process to avoid tipping off rival countries or criminals.

“This can’t happen if you post it on a website,” Rogers, a Republican and lead author of a cybersecurity information-sharing bill that has passed the House, told the Summit. “We have to find a forum in which we can share it, and 10 providers serve 80 percent of the market. We have classified relationships with a good number of them.”

Among those that have agreed to provide the classified security services are AT&T Inc. and Raytheon Co. Northrop Grumman Corp. said this week it had also joined the program.

The secret but widespread U.S. practice of buying up tools leveraging unknown or “zero-day” software flaws for spying or attacks was the subject of a Reuters Special Report last week, in which former White House cybersecurity advisors said more flaws should be disclosed for defensive reasons.

Michael Daniel, the White House cybersecurity policy coordinator, told the Summit the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program was still evolving and the type of information shared would change as threats do.

“We want to use the full capabilities that we have to protect as much of the critical infrastructure as we can with that program,” he said.

(Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Tiffany Wu and Leslie Gevirtz)

/////////

Here is the earlier Zero Day story: Booming 'zero-day' trade has Washington cyber experts worried | Reuters

(Reuters) - The proliferation of hacking tools known as zero-day exploits is raising concerns at the highest levels in Washington, even as U.S. agencies and defense contractors have become the biggest buyers of such products.

White House cybersecurity policy coordinator Michael Daniel said the trend was "very worrisome to us."

Asked if U.S. government buying in the offensive market was adding to the problem, Daniel said more study was needed. "There is a lot more work to be done in that space to look at the economic questions...so we can do a better job on the cost-benefit analysis," he said.

Some security experts say the government's purchasing power could help instead of hurt. They argue the U.S. government should bring the market into the open by announcing it will pay top dollar for zero-days and then disclosing all vulnerabilities to the companies concerned and their customers.

"Given that people are now buying vulnerabilities, the U.S. should simply announce that it is cornering the market, that they will pay 10 times anyone else," said Dan Geer, chief information security officer at In-Q-Tel, the U.S. intelligence community's venture capital firm. He said he was speaking outside of his official capacity.

IN-Q-TEL TROLLING. FACK... This story is going all over the place. In-Q-Tel is the CIA's venture capital wing, worth noting for those unfamiliar. They use government money to make private venture capitalists tons of profits - for example building up Keyhole into Google Earth, which, when installed on your computer phones home constantly.

See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/in-q-tel/

In-Q-Tel - Wikipedia. Among other things: "In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 shares of Google, worth over $2.2 million, on Nov 15, 2005.[6] The stocks were a result of Google’s acquisition of Keyhole, the CIA funded satellite mapping software now known asGoogle Earth."

Exclusive: Google, CIA Invest in 'Future' of Web Monitoring | Danger Room | Wired.com: "The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future."

In-Q-Tel: The CIA's Tax-Funded Player In Silicon Valley : All Tech Considered : NPR && 25 Cutting Edge Companies Funded By The Central Intelligence Agency - Business Insider

/////

Batchez of linx follow when diving into this newest gravy train. Here is a plain setup showing a bunch of classified stuff about to go out the door to shady contractors, I'm sure none of them sketchballs with foreign intelligence angles who will sell out and use the good stuff to attack for massive profit.

DIBS ON YOUR INTERNETS: This is probably the original DIB thing now foisted on America at large, or closer to it:

www.dc3.mil/dcise/DIB Enhanced Cybersecurity Services Procedures.pdf
DIB Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (DECS)

The Department of Defense (DoD) in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively engaged in multiple efforts to foster mutually beneficial partnerships with the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) to protect DoD information residing on or passing though DIB company systems. One such effort is the DIB Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Program, including its optional DIB Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (DECS) component.

Under the optional DECS component of the DIB CS/IA Program, the Government will furnish classified cyber threat and technical information either to a DIB company or to the DIB company’s Commercial Service Provider (CSP). This sensitive, Government-furnished information enables these DIB companies, or the CSPs on behalf of their DIB customers, to counter additional types of known malicious cyber activity, to further protect DoD program information.

///////

This is also nuts: www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg544/docs/ECS_Fact_Sheet.pdf

And: Raytheon, Lockheed Get U.S. Secrets as Cybersecurity Go-Betweens

Cyber Security, Critical Infrastructure, and Obama’s Executive Order - Deloitte CIO - WSJ

Northrop, US DHS team up to support enhanced cybersecurity services :: Strategic Defence Intelligence

U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance | Politics and Law - CNET News

///////

Other Major Moves of Note right now: Of course the Bitcoin ecosystem got a major swipe at it from Department of Homeland Security's new uber-agency, Homeland Security Investigations. Warrant Reveals Homeland Security Seized Mt. Gox’s Dwolla Account for ‘Unlicensed Money Transmitting’ | Betabeat. I covered some key notes on the ever-spreading DHS-HSI organization in April 2012.

Associated Press situation is a big deal too. via @johnknefel: What's at Stake When the Department of Justice Seizes AP Phone Records | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Anyway I will leave it there for now. The Hack Cartel rides high today, but as with all these corrupt authoritarian bubbles they tumble sooner or later.

The Cyberwar fleet of fools will sink of its own accord, but how many innocent fishing boats will get capsized in the wake of their fooling about?

Cubic NUWAIX: Spoiler Alert! Uncompetitive Bidding for Cubic Apocalyptic Scenarios: NUWAIX 2013 Minot nuclear exercise & dramatic theft of explosives in Montana

HOW TO CUBIC YR APOCALYPTIC SKRILLO FLOW? uncompetitive bidding :)

dtra-contract.png

source- CBRNE Exercise / CMAP Support Services - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities J&A6.302-1_-_J3PBCS5990.pdf - Dec 7 2012

Quick post about how much money you can make simulating the apocalypse for the new Homeland Security & domestic military ops structure. Cubic NUWAIX - you has it! Spoiler Alert for Exercise Scenario: Open Ended Profits!

How to sign off on something sketchy - even the attorney is laying low:


dtra-sekrit.png

A somewhat interesting event is happening in a few sites around the midwest - ARDENT SENTRY 2013 is a major annual domestic military exercise - with a whole series of simulated events run in different places. Interestingly NUWAIX 2013 involves a simulated nuclear incident in Minot North Dakota, a place known for both nuclear technology and odd incidents.

Additionally there was a major theft of explosives round about those parts recently as well, no doubt by SAIC minions. cryptogon.com » Montana: 559 Pounds of High Explosives Stolen from U.S. Forrest Service Bunker - source KPAX:

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Carbon County Sheriff’s Office are asking for help from the public in gathering information about the theft of approximately 559 pounds of high explosives from a USFS explosives bunker located near Red Lodge.

A press release from the ATF says that in April 2013, someone used forced entry to get into an explosives storage facility owned and operated by the U. S. Forest Service, which is located about two miles south of Red Lodge.

Officials say that various emulsion-type explosives, explosive cast boosters and detonating cord were taken from the facility.

Hence one could speculate an event involving nukes, dynamite, ideally, cigar twirling ubervillains with headquarters on trains.

More interestingly - or concretely anyway - we find that the mysterious Cubic Corporation has an apparently open-ended contract doing these nuclear exercises & such. "Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity" IDIQ contract with Cubic Defense Applications Inc (CAI) "without using full and open competition".

Military & domestic exercises have a certain level of interest from alternative researchers and people that annoy Obama on the Internet because they have been known to relate to 'real world events' in different ways - like for example, if you have an exercise it's a good day to launch wars because the planes are already flying around etc. Recently this happened with a European bombing campaign of Libya actually - "Southern Mistral" was the exercise.

This is about DSCA - Defense Support of Civil Authorities! As discussed earlier at the NORTHCOM level this is CONPLAN 3501. dsca.army.mil: DSCA Training

dsca.png

Also: Defense Support of Civil authorities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NORAD and USNORTHCOM Conduct ARDENT SENTRY 2012 - http://www.northcom.mil/News/2012/042412.html

April 24, 2012

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. - The North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command will conduct a major exercise, ARDENT SENTRY 2012, focused on Defense Support of Civil Authorities, May 2 – 9, 2012.

The exercise will be primarily a Command Post Exercise, but there will be field training events within the exercise. Those events will take place in North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Alaska, Connecticut and Nova Scotia and involve United States and Canadian military units.

- North Dakota, the Air Force Global Strike Command will respond to a simulated Nuclear Weapons Incident (NUWAIX) on Minot Air Force Base.

- Oregon, the Oregon National Guard will work with state and local officials to respond to numerous weather-related and security events.

- Texas, US Army North will deploy a task force to work through the process of leading a military response to a major hurricane.

- Alaska, Joint Task Force-Alaska will conduct a coordinated response to a major aircraft crash in a remote area.

- Nova Scotia, Canadian and US Naval forces will work together to handle a security related event.

ARDENT SENTRY 12 will validate existing plans, policies, and procedures, including the Federal Inter-agency Response Plan, as well as state and regional plans.

For more information, contact USNORTHCOM Public Affairs at 719-554-6889 or 719-304-6097.

/////

We have to keep a special eye on Minot because of the mysterious 2007 Minot Nuclear Incident. Google that term - wiki here. People died, it was very strange. The wiki version is buttoned down pretty tightly - 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident - Wikipedia as a lot of odd things happened including possibly a fragmentary attempt to escalate the nuclear posture outside the authentic US chain of command (aka Cheney faction starts playing around).

Hence when there is another NORTHCOM exercise at Minot for NUWAIX, Minot's weird recent history is certainly related - "Don't forget where these things are, right you guyz?"

minot-nuclear-incident.png

/////

Related Linx - NUWAIX ALERTZ & so forth: Nevada internal planning for these exercises & moar. http://www.nv.doe.gov/nationalsecurity/homelandsecurity/frmac/pdfs/Events_Calendar.pdf

The President may be trolling GrumpyCats on the interwebs nowadays. Yet a few radars always go up over nuclear exercises.

Nuclear incident drills to start Monday across Montana | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

ALERT... Hundreds of Pounds of Explosives 'Stolen' From Montana Bunker!... NUCLEAR Drill in Montana on May 6th! | KnowTheLies.com - The Truth is Hidden in Plain View...

ALERT!... NUWAIX 2013... NUCLEAR Drill in Montana on May 6th! | KnowTheLies.com - The Truth is Hidden in Plain View...

Nuclear incident drills to start Monday across Montana | Great Falls Tribune | greatfallstribune.com - PAYWALLD

Great name for a site eh?? NESARA- REPUBLIC RESTORED - Galactic News: Nuclear Incident drills in Montana starting Monday

More seriously though, This whole thing sounded nicely insane. DTRA Increases Cubic CBRNE Support Contract | Global Biodefense

DTRA Increases Cubic CBRNE Support Contract

Posted on November 28, 2012

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has announced intentions to increase the funding ceiling on an existing Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, High-Yield Explosives (CBRNE) Exercise Support Services contract with Cubic Applications, Inc. (CAI).

As a result of unanticipated increases in the quantity of Foreign Consequence Management (FCM), Nuclear Weapons Accident / Incident Exercise (NUWAIX) and Consequence Management Assistance Program (CMAP) events in FY13-14, the government requires an increase in the ceiling of the contract to ensure immediate and continued support of current and scheduled efforts in Fiscal Year 2013-14. The increase results in no change to the ordering period of the contract which continues through July of 2014.

“As CAI has over eight years’ experience in the planning, development, and execution of FCM/NUWAIX and CMAP efforts, only CAI possesses the in-depth knowledge and expertise required to plan, develop, and execute the current and scheduled FCM/NUWAIX and CMAP requirements,” states the DTRA announcement. “Further, as the current performer and executor of these highly specialized/niche counter CBRNE Exercise Support services, CAI is the only source capable of fulfilling the Government’s requirements.”

The current effort with CAI is managed under HDTRA1-04-D-0020. Due to current and anticipated growth in these areas, the agency expressed intentions to re-compete the program contract prior to expiration in January 2014.

CAI and parent company Cubic Corporation of San Diego, CA are engaged in the design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of high technology systems, products, and services for government and commercial customers. Cubic employs nearly 7,800 people worldwide.

//////

Contract to spec: Google term HDTRA1-04-D-0020 gives more on the exercise contract. CUBIC snags $3.7 million here DTRA.mil 2010-07 BC Contract Awards Over 100K.xls

JustificationsApprovals - DTRA other loopholes / adjustments filed for contracts, listed here.

CBRNE Exercise / CMAP Support Services - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

CBRNE Exercise / CMAP Support Services

Solicitation Number: J3PBCS5990

Agency: Other Defense Agencies
Office: Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Location: Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Headquarters)

/////

Ah yes Cubic Corporation was rumored to be associated with the Trapwire global surveillance grip project. They denied it. It's sort of indirect, but it's funny that Cubic has its fingers in deez pies and near other interesting pies as well.

VioletBlue Examining the ties between TrapWire, Abraxas and Anonymizer | ZDNet

Technically, Cubic has nothing to do with Abraxas Applications, which is behind TrapWire. But there are some historical vestiges as well as current shareholder arrangements that make the connections between Cubic, Abraxas Applications and Abraxas Corp. far more muddled than initially portrayed.

People are saying that TrapWire is linked to Anonymizer -- popular among activists and at-risk populations -- because Abraxas Corporation acquired Anonymizer in 2008.

Abraxas Corporation's parent company Cubic Corporation issued a statement saying that Cubic -- and its Abraxas Corporation -- have no affiliation with TrapWire, which they say is the product of a separate company, Abraxas Applications.

Cubic Corporation acquired Abraxas Corporation in November 2010 for $124 million. Cubic has three units focused on defense systems, mission services and transportation for military operations. Trapwire's software is designed to thwart terrorist threats and criminal attacks. In other words, Cubic and the two Abraxas companies live in opposite ends of the same neighborhood.

It's also true that Abraxas Applications was spun off -- out of Abraxas Corporation -- into its own software business in 2007, before the Anonymizer acquisition.

Abraxas Corporation developed TrapWire beginning in 2004 (PDF link to report of work shared between Abraxas Corporation and Abraxas Applications).

When TrapWire became ready to sell as a commercial product, Abraxas Applications was launched to do so in 2007.

The intent for Abraxas Applications at the outset was to have both Abraxas projects play together under the direction of both companies' former CEO, Hollis Helm, former chief of the CIA's National Resources Division.

The Barrett Brown research project is currently still hosting a pile of info on Cubic:Cubic Corporation - Project PM. Good point "Free Barrett Brown | Support the defense of Barrett Brown: imprisoned American journalist and activist, founder of Project PM. Since he was in fact supporting a research project calling attention to Cubic.

Cubic Corporation Has No Affiliation with Trapwire, Inc. > Cubic Corporation

This is worth documenting. It takes a special bureaucracy to really shape such technical realities, bringing them forth into our world. Cubic Corporation: more evidence of TrapWire link; their darker side exposed | Darker Net

1. Recently DARPA (part of the Pentagon) awarded Cubic Corporation $6 million to develop a “laser-emitting targeting computer” for American military snipers. It’s called ‘One Shot XG’ (see photo above) “that will allow the sniper to make kill shots “under crosswind conditions, at the maximum effective range of current and future weapons.”
2. In 2004, Cubic Corporation were granted a $6.5 million subcontract from General Dynamics Amphibious Systems to develop and produce a Driver Simulator and a Turret Simulator for the Marine Corps new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV).
3. Cubic Corporation were also awarded another $6 million contract from Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture to produce tactical trainers for RLM’s shoulder launched, “fire-and-forget” anti-tank missile.
4. Cubic are also building the Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (STARS), an air/ground data link system for the US military.
5. Two days ago Cubic Corporation put out a press release denying any link with TrapWire, which we now know is questionable (if we go by their directors listings). Well here’s another Cubic Corp press release (from May 2010):

ORLANDO, Florida – May 17, 2010 – Cubic’s Simulation Systems Division, a defense systems unit of Cubic Corporation (NYSE: CUB), has been awarded a contract valued at approximately $4.8 million to supply 27 of its COMBATREDI systems to the Florida Army National Guard, along with four 180-degree Warrior Skills Trainers (WST), a vehicle trainer that works with COMBATREDI. The award represents Cubic’s first sale of the new COMBATREDI system, which immerses users in a highly realistic 360-degree “virtual reality” environment. COMBATREDI is a new approach for Cubic, its first completely tetherless, user-worn virtual training system. It features a high-definition helmet-mounted OLED video display that delivers game-quality graphics with a 60-by-45-degree field of view, and an integrated 3D stereo headset for sound effects. Trainees are able to move through a 360-degree virtual environment, including entering buildings, as if it were real. The user carries a realistic wireless “surrogate” rifle that performs like a real one, requiring things like magazine changes and selecting the correct firing mode to operate correctly. Cubic introduced the new system to potential military users late last year. “Cubic is pleased that it hasn’t taken long for the groundbreaking characteristics of COMBATREDI to be recognized by the user community,” said Tony Padgett, Immersive Product Line Manager for Cubic Simulation Systems in Orlando. “COMBATREDI fully immerses trainees into the virtual environment. This is a whole new way to train the dismounted soldier.” Padgett said COMBATREDI allows individual soldiers to be trained almost anywhere, incorporating virtually limitless scenarios without the need for dedicated facilities. The WST system also being delivered to the Florida Army National Guard projects realistic high-fidelity scenes on large screens using the Virtual Battle Space 2 (VBS2) engine. This system is in use in multiple U.S. Army locations.

////////

Anyway also here is an EPA exercise schedule & workshop list: Planning and Exercise Schedule | Region 8 | US EPA

epa-exercise-workshop.png

Mainly I would say that training exercises should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary, and indeed they should not be an opportunity for shadowy corporations like Cubic to profit from open-ended contracts.

MPD Tracking OccupyMN Facebook BBQs: Minneapolis "secret" Strategic Information Center / Emergency Operations and Training Facility 25 37th Ave NE in Fridley

Dateline: Pseudo-Secret Minneapolis (aka Fridley): What WCCO called the "secret" "City of Eyes" Strategic Information Center has been located on the Google! Your Federal Stimulus Money & FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations At Work - A Facility for Spying on Facebook Occupy Barbecues

strategic-center-mpls.png

It's nice when data releases tie together a larger system, and we've sure got that here. It's not really "secret" but it's quite shiny & new, not well-known at all, and it is certainly has been used as a site for spying on Occupy activists without criminal predicates by the Minneapolis Police Department. [emails a bit farther down]

///// UPDATE Jan 10 2013: See How to check cops checking your driver's license, Rassmusson lawsuit settlement docs /////

The Minneapolis Police Department files about Occupy Minnesota released by a data request on Monday afternoon are turning up interesting wastes of taxpayer money -- and even the so-called "secret" Strategic Information Center & Emergency Operations and Training Facility at 25 37th Ave Northeast in Fridley, north of the city line by the river & railroad tracks.

Also known as the EOTF/SIC, let's wrangle up everything we can find. Start with architects, via Wold Architects/Engineers: City of Minneapolis EOTF | Wold Architects and Engineers

Wold Architects and Engineers designed a site and facility for the City of Minneapolis Fire Department Training Campus to include a Fire Department’s Training Division; training classrooms multi-used as an Emergency Operations Center for the City’s Emergency Preparedness; a Strategic Information Sensor Monitoring Center for the Minneapolis Police Department; and vehicle storage garages for the Fire Department’s regional asset equipment.

The design exceeds the City of Minneapolis requirement for design to meet LEED Silver.

strategic-4.png

strategic-5.pngThis state-of-the-art federally funded facility allows police to determine... the location of barbecues on Facebook, including even the number of "YES" and "MAYBE" invitees.

This facility also encompasses "Shotspotter" directional microphones all over the city - I wonder if those are ever activated besides the gunshot decibel threshold "trigger" - they are in fact pretty high-fidelity microphones, it has been disclosed (May 28 2012 NYT article) but the manufacturer denies the mics are triggered by conversations.

I for one, am glad that we spent both municipal and borrowed federal tax dollars on training the Minneapolis police to believe a Facebook "YES" invite is real. The simulacrum of today's clicks has become the strategic information of tomorrow!

The old EOC center, used in the 2007 35W bridge collapse, can be seen here via MPR and clearly lacks expensive-enough videoconferencing gear.

Here is the press release from Nov 4 2010: Minneapolis opens Emergency Operations Training Facility - City of Minneapolis

Minneapolis opens Emergency Operations Training Facility

The City of Minneapolis has opened its new Emergency Operations Training Facility, which will help emergency responders and other City staff better prepare for and respond to emergencies. The multi-purpose building helps meet the training and response needs of the Minneapolis Fire Department, the Minneapolis Police Department, and the City's Emergency Management Division, along with other regional partners.

The Emergency Operations Training Facility is a multi-purpose building that includes training classrooms for Minneapolis firefighters and metro emergency managers, a strategic information center for the Minneapolis police, the main training site for the State of Minnesota Structural Collapse Team, and an emergency operations center that will be used during significant emergencies or disasters.

The new facility is built on a 12-acre site in Fridley that the City purchased in 1990, and since that time, the site has been built out as a training facility for Minneapolis Firefighters. Over the years, a fire training tower and propane burn building have been constructed, and special equipment has been purchased to help train emergency responders for incidents involving hazardous materials and collapsed structures. The construction of the new Emergency Operations Training Facility on the site is a major step toward completing this training and response site.

The Emergency Operations Training Facility is built to a LEED Silver Quality Standard for sustainability, and it includes facilities for a wide range of emergency responders from Minneapolis and the region:

Emergency Operations Center

One of the lessons learned from the City's response to the Interstate 35W Bridge collapse in 2007 was that the City's Emergency Operations Center, located in the basement of City Hall, was too small to serve as a center for large-scale emergencies. The new facility fixes that, with 2,800 more square feet of floor space. It will also be used as a back-up Emergency Operations Center for the State, Hennepin County and the City of St. Paul.

Strategic Information Center

The Strategic Information Center is a new space where the Minneapolis Police Department will analyze data to determine long-range trends that pose potential risks to the city. It can provide emergency managers with important information during a major event, incident or disaster.

State of Minnesota Structural Collapse Team

This team serves the entire state with specialized equipment and trained personnel for urban search and rescue and structural collapse incidents. This facility will include apparatus bays for storage of emergency response vehicles and specialty equipment for the Coast Guard, State, City and Metro West region of Homeland Security. In addition, this facility will house training and classroom space, staff offices, support spaces and common spaces.

Coast Guard monitoring.

The U.S. Coast Guard will also use the facility as a monitoring location for cameras placed along the Mississippi River from St. Louis to the metro area.

Published Nov. 4, 2010

Moar casual Google Mapping:

google-streetview-mpls.png

Apparently they dropped a cool $50K on the fence in early 2012. here is the bid page "To furnish all labor, materials, equipment and incidentals necessary to accomplish the complete construction of Emergency Operations Training Facility Perimeter Fence Project, located at 25 37th Ave NE, Fridley, MN." SRC: Minneapolis, City of - Projects. [A little more on the fence industrial complex below]

google-streetview-mpls2.png

Of course, once Erin Brockovich samples those weird adjacent holding pond things, I'm sure the infamous Fridley Cancer Cluster case will be solved. Perhaps Sgt. Garcia can go out and take some samples!

google-map-mpls1.png google-map-mpls2.png

I believe at least two of structures are firefighter training buildings - later pics below seem to bear this out.

eoc-marketing-swag1.pngHere is some marketing swag about the video conferencing gear. AVI-SPL Integrates Government Emergency Operation Centers. See the PDF and video too.

eoc-marketing-swag2.pngLet's check out the $330,704 in electronically-created yet borrowed-at-interest-from-private-Fed-cartel recently invested in this barbecue monitoring center. Official less-than-informative stimulus info page: Minneapolis Recovery - City of Minneapolis Minneapolis Police Strategic Information Center.

[Naturally it is funded by the electronically created debt-digits from the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the same endless police pork hub that brought us all those "you might be a terrorist if you pay in cash" type intel flyers for everything from hotels to hobby stores - many of those flyers were financed by Grant Number 2007-MU-BX-K002, which I included ironically on my own site's banner art. Google it for lulz!] Here's that official page:

The City of Minneapolis is not a primary recipient on this project. No Federal Report XML is submitted for this project.

Dollars Awarded

$330,704

Project Status

Fully completed

Project Description

To establish integrated crime analysis in cooperation with the St. Paul Police Department. Staff will be located in a joint Strategic Information Center (SIC).

Funding Program

MN Department of Public Safety: Byrne Justice Assistance Grant

Responsibility for Implementation

Police Department

Funding Agency

US Department of Justice [BJA/Recovery Act]

Dollars Leveraged

Data not yet available.

Dollars Leveraged Description

Data not yet available.

Dollars Requested

$330,704

Projected Jobs Created

2

Award Type

Grant

Sub-recipient Names

Minneapolis, City of

Vendor Names

No vendors have been contracted to date.

Recovery Funds Spent to Date

$330,704

Perhaps this is even the 'secret' location Tippy spycams are constructed: a while ago prankster MPD Spokester & PIO Jesse Garcia shared pics of a camera construction room & with all the other video rigs this seems a likely spot.

Anyway finally here is the email chain which prompted this line of research. There are surely other gems, we are just barely getting started. Circa page 109 of Part 1:

strategic-center-targets-barbecue.png

The public servant on some of these emails is one Minneapolis Police Department officer Steven Otteson, who has a decidedly low Internet profile.

Poking for traces of intrepid Strategic Facebooker Otteson turns up very little - even though the email is dated June 2012, he has no listed salary on this MPD salary list: My Docstoc. Crossposted the index here: 2011 Minneapolis Police Dept Gross Salary index for Web.

A news story indicated the supervisor of the Strategic Information Center is MPD Lt. Jeff Rugel at 612-673-3428. Page 112:

rugel-bbq.png

"Why are we not getting this stuff from the SIC?" Here is stuff about why they should not have to "spend time looking it up" and it should be run through the SIC... This could kind of be the crux of the whole issue here on Page 114:

sic-track-occupy

Alright, that covers some of the new data on this SIC thing vis-a-vis obsessing on Occupy events, so let's turn to the news coverage of this facility.

Carefully shaped news coverage: Mid-2012 saw a series of mainstream media items intended to shape public perceptions this center is designed to neutralize the threats from the surveilled populace. WCCO went so far as to call it a "secret location". That is some quality Fourth Estate right there.

Coverage for this "City of Eyes" facility on WCCO March 19 2012 (video) City Of Eyes: Your Camera May Help Mpls Police Fight Crime « CBS:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Minneapolis police are the first in the country to merge two technologies to help officers fight crime.

The Minneapolis Police Department has combined shot spotter technology and a system of cameras to help catch criminals in the act.

Authorities allowed WCCO-TV’s Reg Chapman into a secret location in Minneapolis, where a strategic information center is housed.

Minneapolis Police Deputy Chief Rob Allen said the room is where police gather intelligence.

“This is the room where we try and fuse the technology we have to monitor video cameras, to monitor the sounds of possible gunshots, and it’s where we have our officers who are trained in intelligence gathering,” he said.

The system in the room is like CBS’ Thursday night show “Person of Interest,” in which cameras are used to help save people from becoming victims of crime.

“If you can anticipate where crimes might happen, you got a far better chance of preventing them from occurring,” Allen said.

According to Allen, when a gunshot goes off, a camera turns toward the source of the sound. Strategic Information Center Commander Lt. Jeff Rugel said the technology helped solve a case where a man was shot, killed and pushed out of a moving car. The sound of the gunfire activated the cameras, which gave police their first clue.

[......]City Of Eyes

The number of cameras connected to the intelligence system is growing and helping police catch more criminals. But not all the cameras are owed by the city.

“The city owns roughly 250 cameras,” Allen said. “We can access right now … an infinite number of cameras.”

According to Allen, any camera that has an IP address, is connected to the Internet, and that police have permission to use can give information to authorities.

So whenever you are in a public space, know that you’re likely on camera. Police are using portable cameras more now than ever. They can put them where they are needed and have one up and running within an hour of the order.

Invasion Of Privacy?

But what about your right to privacy? Police say they are careful not to infringe on anyone’s rights.

“Every time we installed a camera system, we went to the neighborhood and said, ‘You know, this is what we’ve thought about doing? Do you want it or not,’” Allen said.

He says police can’t look into a place where someone has the expectation of privacy. [magic filters eh?] But police still have a wide reach, which gives criminals a greater chance of getting caught on camera.

Crime patterns are currently moving and Minneapolis police hope to add more portable cameras. Police believe if criminals know they are being watched they are more likely not to commit crimes.

Star Tribune writes about this center using Facebook to watch what the state defines as "gang members" (mysteriously, shady rich Caucasian financial operatives never seem to meet this race/age/wealth-biased deviance category schema).

Of course, this week's data release shows this has bloated out to canvassing political movements without even the semblance of illegal activity... there is no "barbecue predicate" but there are of course hourly wages to be paid by Minneapolis taxpayers for monitoring the barbecue Facebook Event. Perhaps even overtime!

Gangs sometimes fire first shots online | StarTribune by Matt McKinney July 14 2012:

Facebook has become a virtual street corner where members trade threats, mourn the dead.

"It's probably no different than any other kids, right?" said Minneapolis police Lt. Jeff Rugel. "They're sharing stuff that they used to do face-to-face or over the phone. But there's criminal stuff." [.....]

Rugel runs the police department's Strategic Information Center, where officers use technology to track crime. One of the jobs in his office amounts to monitoring Facebook full-time. They understand the teen slang and filter through thousands of innocuous and inane comments to look for the few that could solve a crime or stop one before it happens. They try to draw connections out of the Facebook networks to help document the shifting alliances on the street.

Police were aware of Facebook threats between rival gangs weeks before the shooting that killed Nizzel, but the threats weren't specific. When Rugel and his staff sees something that looks like trouble -- a known gang member says he's going to hurt someone -- they pass the information along to officers on the street.

It's a poorly kept secret that the police watch Facebook, said Rugel.

"You see comments every once in a while. 'Don't put that on Facebook. You know who's looking at it,' " he said.

Despite some users' occasional concern, many of the Facebook users monitored by police flaunt their illegal behavior online, showing themselves smoking marijuana, posing with stolen merchandise, the security tags still attached, and making gang signs. [.....]

There was also some bidding information online about the estimated $50,000 fence around the facility. Emergency Operations Training Facility Perimeter Fence Project (eBidDoc #1810882) contact: David Schlueter phone: 612-673-2834 e-mail: david.schlueter@ci.minneapolis.mn.us bid date: 01/25/2012 10:00:00 AM

Try http://io.questcdn.com/questio/projects/planholder/planholder_list.html?jobPK=1810882&userPK=&modifiable=FALSE&isQCPI=TRUE

strategic-center-fence-bidding.png

//////

garcia-yatedo.pngSome other stuff: for what it's worth, this lists PIO Jesse Garcia as being based at the Strategic Information Center.Minneapolis Police Department Employees - Professional Experience,Email,Phone numbers..Everything!: Digging deeper to: Jesse Garcia III - Strategic Information Center, Minneapolis Police Department:

It was scraped off his LinkedIn - no surprise there. But no one put it together... Jesse Garcia III | LinkedIn. I think it would be great if state law were changed so that Garcia could be cross-examined by taxpayers about the flow of drug money through the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and its member banks, let's say once a month on live community access TV. Looks like he ought to be tapped into that gigaflow of data on bankster crime intel!

Strategic Information Center

Minneapolis Police Department

September 2010 – Present (2 years 5 months)

I am a supervisor in our new intel center that focuses on:

-gang intel

-crime intel

-real time officer assist

-safety camera analysis

-Emergency Operations Center readiness

jesse.garcia@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Public Information Officer / Media Relations

Minneapolis Police Department

October 2007 – September 2010 (3 years)

More media: Vehicle data, email access among Minneapolis legislative issues | MinnPost - Karen Boros, Nov 2, 2012. Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) including of course the "secret" camera on nearby Plymouth Ave. N. bridge is controlled from this "Strategic Information unit" according to the article - I would assume this is the same spot it's based, unless it is somehow split:

Currently, the Minneapolis Police Department uses cameras to record the license plates, time and location of vehicles. That data is now public information that can be obtained by anyone requesting the information.

“Our concern is that if it stays public data that people can use it for inappropriate purposes,” said Deputy Chief Robert Allen. The system now doesn’t allow police to inquire how it might be used. “We’re not allowed to make a judgment,” he said.

Access to the data is controlled by about a dozen people working in the department’s Strategic Information unit.

Alright this is taking more than long enough. This thing says it is 22,178 sq ft and it is on parcel 34-30-24-43-0009.

Minneapolis, City of - Projects: An estimated $1.5 million were bid on this beast for just a small chunk of the building, closed Feb 2012.

directions to site: 25 37th Ave NE Fridley, MN 55421

bids close: 02/23/2012, 10:00:00 AM

bids received by: City of Minneapolis Purchasing Department CONSTRUCTION OF THE EOTF APPARAUS BAY ADDITION 330 Second Avenue South Suite 552 Minneapolis, MN 55401

estimated value: $1,500,000.00

project completion date: 08/15/2011

pre-bid meeting information: A Pre-Bid Meeting and site tour will be held on February 15th, at 11:00 AM, Local Time in Room 128 at the Emergency Operations Training Facility located at 25 37th Ave NE, Fridley MN. All interested bidders should attend this meeting.

addenda: 1

project description: Scope of Work Includes: Complete construction of the Apparatus Bay Addition at the City of Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility. This work shall include all labor, equipment, materials, installation, handling, delivery at site, necessary insurance and permits, erection and other required items for general, civil, landscaping, demolition, structural, architectural, mechanical and electrical construction and stability as shown on the plans and specifications.

additional description: This Contract contemplates the complete construction of the Emergency Operations Training Facility Apparatus Bay Addition for the Minneapolis Fire Department located at 25 37th Avenue NE., in Fridley, all in accordance with the Contract Documents. This Project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the State of Minnesota Sustainability Building Guidelines B3 (MSBG B3) Version 2.1 and also the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Design ( USGBC LEED®) Rating System. It is the intent of this Contract that the Project shall become MSBG B3 Version 2.1 Certified and LEED® SILVER level of quality building under the LEED®-NC Rating System. Work to be performed consists of the furnishing of all materials, machinery, equipment, labor, supplies, tools, transportation, and other incidentals necessary or convenient to complete the work as shown in the Contract Documents on file in the Minneapolis Finance Department, Property Services Division and with the Purchasing Agent of the City of Minneapolis.

owner: City of Minneapolis

350 South 5th Street, Room 223

Minneapolis , MN 55415

ph: 612-673-3774

contact: Chris Backes e-mail: chris.backes@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Soliciting Agent: Soliciting agent

Minneapolis, City of

330 2nd Ave. S. Suite 552

Minneapolis, MN 55415

ph: 612-673-2834

fax: 612-673-3565

contact: David Schlueter e-mail: david.schlueter@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

It was used to host a session of the 10,000 Lakes Chapter of the International Code Council. [pdf]

The site's address is place on things like preparedness for your pet: Emergency Preparedness - City of Minneapolis && stuff about exercises (again on the sidebar) City Preparation - City of Minneapolis - the 'meh' front page: Emergency Preparedness - City of Minneapolis. Really need to improve page titles at the city. Perhaps after the election?

Awards - City of Minneapolis:

Minneapolis wins its second Tekne Award

Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility

November 2011: The Minnesota High Tech Association recognized the City of Minneapolis and its Emergency Operations Training Facility with an award at the 2011 Tekne Awards, held Nov. 3 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. The Tekne Awards recognize Minnesota companies and individuals who have shown superior technology innovation and leadership.

The City of Minneapolis took home the award in the “Technology Excellence in a Nonprofit Organization” category that recognized the City’s Emergency Operations Training Facility/Strategic Information Center (EOTF/SIC) for bringing technology and information together to make Minneapolis a safer place. At the facility, technology, digital data, streaming video and highly interactive interfaces come together in one highly efficient communication center for the city.

The Minneapolis Fire Department, Police Department, and Emergency Management division opened the EOTF/SIC in August 2010 as a place where they and other emergency responders could coordinate more closely than had ever been possible before. The facility recently demonstrated its effectiveness during the response to the May 22 tornado that struck north Minneapolis.The multi-purpose building also provides training space for emergency responders.

Here it was, the first one: Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility wins Tekne award - City of Minneapolis: The City of Minneapolis took home the award in the “Technology Excellence in a Nonprofit Organization” category that recognized the City’s Emergency Operations Training Facility/Strategic Information Center (EOTF/SIC) for bringing technology and information together to make Minneapolis a safer place. At the facility, technology, digital data, streaming video and highly interactive interfaces come together in one highly efficient communication center for the city.... and earlier: Oct 18, 2011: Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility a finalist for Tekne award - City of Minneapolis

Mpls. Unveils New Emergency Operations Center | Crime | Downtown News - Nov 4 2010, KSTP Gail Brown: Congressman Keith Ellison secured $750,000 for the project in a 2010 appropriations bill, and he will be attending a ribbon cutting ceremony at 2:30 p.m. along with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, City Council President Barb Johnson and other city leaders.

Ellison Secures $750,000 for Minneapolis Emergency Operations Center - Ellison.House.gov Oct 15 2009:

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis) secured a $750,000 appropriation for the City of Minneapolis to build a new Emergency Operations Center in a bill approved by the House today. The funds were included in H.R. 2892, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for FY 2010.

Roughly the same stuff in this Council Prez Barb Johnson doc.

It's on Pinterest - see Government & Military for tons of funny stuff including everything from the avispl swag people above. And also: AV Products We Love / Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility

There is a blog post about training there on the Mpls Dept of Civil Rights by Anthony Johnson - Civil Rights Urban Scholars with a helpful slideshow. Tony’s Voice: Our Day As Fire Fighters! | Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights.

strategic-center-3.png strategic-center-2.png strategic-center-1.png

I think you can see this fire training structure (or maybe a similar one) on Google Maps though I have not swung by to check out the Facility myself. Another one:

Minneapolis Emergency Services Employ projectiondesign - AVNetwork.com (undated? A couple pix included)

Fredrikstad, Norway--The City of Minneapolis has deployed 12 projectiondesign F32 DLP projectors as the main display source in the Analyst Room and F22 series projectors in the Incident Command Room of its Emergency Operations Training Facility (EOTF).

Located just outside Minneapolis, the EOTF boasts an extensive surveillance, audiovisual and network infrastructure specified and installed by systems integrator AVI-SPL.

“In a facility like this, even the slightest compromise in performance can result in tragic consequences,” said Fred Primoli, regional VP Sales for AVI-SPL. Primoli and his colleagues worked with the city for nearly two years on the concept, planning and final implementation of the EOTF, with the primary challenge being an interesting one: the creation of a state-of-the-art communications facility that may get activated no more than once in a decade.

“We needed systems that were capable of totally robust operation 24 hours per day, seven days per week – but which also were capable of performing at their best after extended periods of inactivity.

“From the outset we were delighted with the performance of the F32 projectors. The Analyst Room has three rear-projection screens, each measuring 160 inches wide by 120 inches tall, with four projectors driving each screen so that four separate windows can be shown on each one.

“The projectors have been superbly colour-matched to ensure consistency across each screen, while their excellent resolution, contrast and brightness mean they are equally at home showing video or data sources – which is important in an installation such as this where the staff need to a view a combination of both.”

Deputy Chief Robert Allen, a veteran of the Minneapolis Police Department, said: “The new display system allows us to look at a video feed and understand a situation almost instantly. Through video, we can get information to our officers much faster – especially when time is critical. We can zoom in with our cameras and really examine a situation and relay it back to our officers, allowing them to be prepared even before they get there. With this new technology, we can see something happen faster than a police offer 50 feet away.”

F22 series projectors from projectiondesign can also be found in the EOTF’s Incident Command Room that’s used for emergency training and an actual declared emergency.

“There is a large number of emergency monitoring projects in the U.S., and we are delighted that our technology has been used to display high-resolution security-camera images in so many of them," said Anders Løkke, marketing director, projectiondesign. "The Minneapolis EOTF already demonstrated its effectiveness during the tornado that swept through the area last May and, although we would prefer it if our systems never had to be used in similar situations again, the reality is that the city is better-protected now that its providers of emergency services have such easy, immediate and accurate access to security-camera imaging from so many locations.”

“The EOTF was conceived as a place where the various Departments responsible for emergency response and management in Minneapolis could co-ordinate their efforts more closely than had previous been possible,” said Primroli.

Same stuff as May 11, 2012: Minneapolis Emergency Services Goes with Projectiondesign - Fire Apparatus

On May 20 2011 CItyPages reported on Rocco Forte, former Minneapolis fire chief, departing, and Forte talked about being pleased to help finish the complex: "After the 35W bridge collapse, the Republican National Convention, and the tornado that went through South Minneapolis, it is clear that we have one of the finest emergency management teams in the country. It was also a long time goal of mine to complete the Emergency Operations Training Facility that includes an Emergency Operations Center, Strategic Information Center as well as a training facility which seats up to 250 people per day."

Reed Construction Data estimates its cost at $3,988,400 (a more accurate cost estimate is available from RSMeans Online), they say.

There are a couple autogenerated links at Facility Management Minneapolis Product From Industrial Manufacturers, Distributers, Suppliers And OEMs.

There is some PR speak about AVI-SPL getting an award. Press Release/ InfoComm, Sound & Video Contractor Honor AVI-SPL with Two PRO AV Spotlight Awards - Audio/Video Equip./Surveillance - AVI-SPL, Inc. | PRZOOM

On March 11, 2009, the overall cost of the project was pegged by House Research as $27,403,000. SRC: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/86/hf0554.pdf

This bill would grant $8,000,000 in bond proceeds to the City of Minneapolis to design, construct, furnish, and equip an emergency operations center housed in the City’s current training center and to make other improvements to the training center.

According to the 2008 budget request, the overall cost of the project is $27,403,000 with the City and Hennepin County funding the non-state funded portions of the project. The Joint Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis will be located at the Minneapolis Fire Training Campus on city owned land. The City contends the current facility is inadequate and limits the effectiveness of the command structure. The City further contends that the Minneapolis Fire Training Campus is an ideal location for the EOC as it would provide a secure operations center with enough room to respond to a major incident affecting the county. Finally, the City believes this request would provide much needed training classrooms at the Minneapolis Training Facility which is the main site for training the State Structural Collapse Team.

HF 554 Status in the House for the 86th Legislature (2009 - 2010) - this is the bill number - I suspect it probably got rolled into the omnibus bill but I will leave that to a Deep Wonk to suss out. // H.F. No. 554, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010).

With a pretty severe shortage of funds for both state and municipal operations, is an open-ended SIC mandate to track protest activity on Facebook really the most prudent use of funds? And doesn't this operational configuration create a chilling effect on political expression in Minneapolis? The research continues....

Federal Homeland Security TSA VIPR Team & #VikingsDrone: Suspicious drone & Feds spotted at Vikings/Packers game

Things are a little strange at the Vikings/Packers Game today. A drone has been photographed hovering around the Metrodome fan plaza on the west side, and a Homeland Security / TSA "VIPR" team has been hanging around as well, indicating the federal government is shifting into "protecting" the major Spectacles at taxpayer expense.

My friend Nathan Hansen noticed the #VikingsDrone and the VIPR team, documenting & posting them on twitter @nathanmhansen. [Note: awhile back I did a 'lil client design work for Hansen.]

//// UPDATE 12:15PM Monday: According to @TCRover, a branch of the Pioneer Press, the drone was NOT operated by the government but rather some production company. The pic they say is from the crew flying it earlier: See https://twitter.com/TCRover/status/285560684245315585/photo/1 . Nonetheless we still need to deal with the impending prospect of government & contractor drones filling our airspace - and indeed this story has prompted others to discuss other sightings near government sites. //// 2:20PM update: It's annoying that they tried to tweet @ me last night but it never turned up in my timeline so I didn't find out until today. I would have much preferred to straighten it out immediately! Also, here's what's going on with drones in Oklahoma... Follow my friend @axxiom for more. ////

PHOTO sources: yfrog Fullsize - http://twitter.yfrog.com/h41hxevhj // yfrog Fullsize - http://twitter.yfrog.com/o0mkqkobj // yfrog Fullsize - http://twitter.yfrog.com/oemubbyj // VIPR Team: yfrog Fullsize - http://twitter.yfrog.com/odjd2ybj

odjd2ybj.jpeg h41hxevhj.jpeg

You can see the four rotors pretty well on these pics. It is comparable to the sports photography drone linked below as well - I figured it might just be a civilian hobbyist drone or some weird sports media project drone until the VIPR team was found by Hansen.

mkqkob.jpg mubby.jpeg

I am just delighted that the national government had to borrow more money at interest from the Federal Reserve System in order to send out these guys and their fancy flying spy robot to the Vikings/Packers game. We get the twin benefits of national debt slavery AND a surveillance state with nothing useful to do!

Our friends at WTFNews cranked out a quick post on this already: Unidentified Drone Spotted at @Packers-@VikingsFootball @NFL Game » WTF RLY REPORT

Let's Ban This Drone Operation in Minneapolis: Already Minneapolis activist Kurtis Hanna has suggested a petition to get drones banned on the city charter. (come to think of it, wouldn't it be good to get something like the White House petition site for the Mpls Charter Commission?) I will include some info below on this.

The Department of Homeland Security and the National Football League have a burgeoning relationship. Previously when I wrote up a post on the relatively new and totally off-the-radar Homeland Security Investigations division (basically their own militant version of the FBI, intended to reach BATF-level org status) they did a drill black helicopter landing on the Super Bowl field. [yes really - HSI is so new I must have been the first person to satirize its absurdities on the whole interweb!] See April 12 2012: Meet the new Boss in Town: ICE spawns... HSI Homeland Security Investigations, for great justice & cocaine cowboys | HongPong.com

The Super Bowl and World Series are also both declared National Special Security Events, which activates a fat block of overtime for many federal police agencies, much like the Republican & Democratic National Conventions. (However, since rioting at sports events is closer to the booze-soaked Id of the American public than more 'political' street upheavals, it doesn't meet the same heavy hand from federal & local police agencies) NSSEs generally feature Homeland Security, FEMA and the Secret Service operating at a high tempo, another thing that HSI & TSA are getting involved with as a 'filler force' if you will.

For Super Bowl NSSE info see: Super Bowl XLVI, NSSE & Big Sis - YouTube // www.secretservice.gov/press/pub0202.pdf on Bowl XXXVI // this crazy PDF: rnc08report.org/engine/uploads/1/Day-2-Breakout-2-NSSE-Carillo-Lowry-Lumley.pdf // Infowars » Indy Super Bowl: National Security State Protects Sports Fans from Prostitutes // National Special Security Events: 8. NSSE Fill-in Fact Sheet // Article Detail - Domestic Preparedness via LLIS.gov // etc

Federal VIPR teams: been popping up in all sorts of places. Here's the Wiki page. Wiki notes GAO attributes their existence to a Reaction to the shady Madrid train bombings. VIPR is trying to get at pro sports & local transportation (the Hiawatha light rail has a station close to where they were photographed) and wherever else they can normalize their presence. In this case the VIPR deployment apparently includes at least a half-dozen uniformed officers and at least one drone.

Additionally there was strange audio interference right before a commercial break in the first half, kind of like the sound a cell phone makes when its microwave signal induces noise in a speaker or electronics. However, I don't think game-day satellite transmissions go straight over-the-air from the Metrodome, as there aren't really satellite dishes around there I've noticed. Thus it seems unlikely to me that the one spotted drone would have glitched the transmission. Perhaps unrelated but also something you don't usually see. I blame Wisconsin FalseFlag types for this noise, whoever that might be :-P

SEE ALSO:

The drone does look similar to the one in this story. New use for drones: Sports photography - CBS News

Oh this is great. Perhaps the best link I've found in this. "PUT [VIPR] TEAMS TO WORK FOR YOU" VIPR teams and pipelines!! A "no cost resources for expanding and enhancing your security". Free oil goon security? Screw that: www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/gas/download/2011SS-2-4-VIPR_Handout.pdf

May 2012: TSA VIPR Team Spotted at… Detroit Music Festival?? « TSA Out of Our Pants!

CNN Jan 28 2012: TSA rail, subway spot-checks raise privacy issues - CNN.com

VIDEO Blackburn Questions TSA Officials on VIPR Teams - YouTube

VIDEO TSA VIPR Teams in Greyhound Bus Station Tampa FL 02/16/2010

TSA deploys 'VIPR' teams throughout Tennessee to set up illegal security checkpoints on interstates - NaturalNews with a bunch of other links including: TSA-style full body pat-downs coming to an NFL stadium near you (Sept 2011) etc

6 USC § 1112 - Authorization of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams | LII / Legal Information Institute. So they are doing this about the Hiawatha light rail officially I would guess. This would also signify that Metro Transit would have some record of the situation if "consult" in Sec.4 has occurred

(a) In general

The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, may develop Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (referred to in this section as “VIPR”) teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the Secretary—

(1) may use any asset of the Department, including Federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, canine detection teams, and advanced screening technology;

(2) may determine when a VIPR team shall be deployed, as well as the duration of the deployment;

(3) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with local security and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the VIPR team is or will be deployed, to develop and agree upon the appropriate operational protocols and provide relevant information about the mission of the VIPR team, as appropriate; and

(4) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with all transportation entities directly affected by the deployment of a VIPR team, as appropriate, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airport owners, over-the-road bus operators and terminal owners and operators, motor carriers, public transportation agencies, owners or operators of highways, port operators and facility owners, vessel owners and operators and pipeline operators.

(b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

Process for City Charter Amendment for banning these drones: Sent along by Kurt Hanna who thinks that "10,791 valid signatures of Minneapolis residents who are registered voters in order to qualify for the ballot" based on the figure of 215,806 voters voting last time. Citizen petition timeframe link. BUT: How much time do we have to gather these signatures?

Some more info: Via Minneapolis City Charter: http://library.municode.com/HTML/11490/level2/SUHITA_CH.html

(1) The methods available for amending a home rule city charter are contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 et seq., which provides as follows:

(1) 410.12 AMENDMENTS. Subdivision 1. Proposals. The charter commission may propose amendments to such charter and SHALL DO SO upon the petition of voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous state general election in the city.Proposed charter amendments must be submitted at least 12 weeks before the general election. Only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. All petitions circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character and shall have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; except that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than 1,000 words, a true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city clerk, and the petition shall then contain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words setting forth in substance the nature of the proposed amendment. Such summary shall contain a statement of the objects and purposes of the amendment proposed and an outline of any proposed new scheme or frame work of government and shall be sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change in government is sought to be accomplished by the amendment.The summary, together with a copy of the proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to the charter commission for its approval as to form and substance. The commission shall within ten days after such submission to it, return the same to the proposers of the amendment with such modifications in statement as it may deem necessary in order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth.

Subd. 2. Petitions. The signatures to such petition need not all be appended to one paper, but to each separate petition there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator thereof as provided by this section. A petition must contain each petitioner's signature in ink or indelible pencil and must indicate after the signature the place of residence by street and number, or their description sufficient to identify the place. There shall appear on each petition the names and addresses of five electors of the city, and on each paper the names and addresses of the same five electors, who, as a committee of the petitioners, shall be regarded as responsible for the circulation and filing of the petition. [........]

(1) Subd. 3. May be assembled as one petition. All petition papers for a proposed amendment shall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instrument. Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the city clerk shall determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested and whether the petition is signed by a sufficient number of voters. The city clerk shall declare any petition paper entirely invalid which is not attested by the circulator thereof as required in this section. Upon completing an examination of the petition, the city clerk shall certify the result of the examination to the council. If the city clerk shall certify that the petition is insufficient the city clerk shall set forth in a certificate the particulars in which it is defective and shall at once notify the committee of the petitioners of the findings. A petition may be amended at any time within ten days after the making of a certificate of insufficiency by the city clerk, by filing a supplementary petition upon additional papers signed and filed as provided in case of an original petition. The city clerk shall within five days after such amendment is filed, make examination of the amended petition, and if the certificate shall show the petition still to be insufficient, the city clerk shall file it in the city clerk's office and notify the committee of the petitioners of the findings and no further action shall be had on such insufficient petition. The finding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose. (Back)

(1) Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The form of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment.

An amusing side question: is this "magick" security theater? Security Theater of course works most "effectively" at materializing psychological phantoms with an audience at a Spectacle. This is the perhaps the principle Stimulus Effect intended by Homeland Security & its general orientation around 'visuals' which is not that different than Ceremonial Magick, which is [arguably] anything that generates a certain sense-impression in the mind of Observers.

metrodome-national-guard.jpeg

Another old backstory: In 2010 some people noticed they were using government photos of MN National Guard riot control gear from the deployment at the 2008 Republican National Convention under the NSSE system for recruitment propaganda on the Metrodome. RNC '08 Report: Our News: National Guard advert on Metrodome, proposed site of 2012 DNC, depicts soldiers deployed against protesters during 2008 RNC. Your tax dollas at work!

"Warning shot will not be fired" by MPs trained in Martial Law in America: Military Police training: heavily patrolled domestic detention facilities, dissident/sniper warrantless searches - CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations training @ Ft McClellan

b. Use of Deadly and Non-deadly Force (4) (b) Warning shot will not be fired.

or better yet:

(3) In an occupied building, when the dissident's/sniper's location is unknown, all suspected rooms must be searched. The action element should try to have occupants submit voluntarily to the search of their rooms. At the same time, occupants should be questioned in an attempt to pinpoint the sniper's location. If occupants will not submit voluntarily and there is probable cause to believe that the dissident/ sniper is located in the room, a complete physical search of the room or rooms should be conducted. Use of the patrol dog will help in conducting such searches.

Another planning layer for emergency domestic military operations has been published: The 2006 US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations does not concern itself with warrants in the 'search' section, indicating a certain level of Constitutional disregard in the military's planning for emergencies in what the document calls CONUS, or Continental United States.

The excellent PublicIntelligence is where this just popped up (first I saw of it anyway): U.S. Army Military Police School Civil Disturbance Operations Course | Public Intelligence - Direct PDF link (115 pages).

martial-law-mp-training-front.png

///////UPDATE JULY 11: Just talked with Alex Jones for an hour on this stuff. Here's the crib notes & PDFs you'll want to see.
/////// UPDATE July 7 AM: My interview with Darren McBreen on Infowars Nightly News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNw_m7gfqXM // Prisonplanet stories by Kurt Nimmo and "Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America" by Paul Watson.. Also I put it on Reddit One & Two

///////

I've only had time to read a bit of it so far, but it ties in very closely with another level of this planning framework, USNORTHCOM (Northern Command) CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations, which is the 21st century replacement for GARDEN PLOT, the Pentagon's plan used between the 1960s and 2002 for domestic riot control & emergency operations in such settings as the LA Riots.

In 2010 I found presentation files on a US Army Corps of Engineer server - for full story please see TC Indymedia Exclusive: Secret 'Trigger' & blueprint for emergency domestic military crackdown plan revealed. Having seen first hand domestic military operations at the 2008 Republican National Convention & 2009 G20 Pittsburgh, the growth and use of domestic military capacity for crowd control is a more-than-hypothetical situation -- and the subsequent obfuscation of those operations by political officeholders and appointees is quite terrifying in its implications.

This Civil Disturbance Operations Subcourse training manual ties right into material cited in the CONPLAN and supporting documents, including many of the same riot control weapons. An earlier version of a very similar manual can be found via that link.

martial-law-crowd-army-weapons-mp.png

Plus this one has quizzes!!

Billeting - I swear I heard something about revolutionaries complaining about billeting earlier... Something everyone makes a big deal out of this time of year....

There is a lot of stuff about formations -

P 62: Handy tip that rioter-impressing safe-port position is a PSYOP and tiring!

(a) The safe-port position is extremely useful in making a show of force before rioters. The above mentioned carrying position is the primary method of carrying weapons in the control force formation. It allows the Soldier to control both ends of the weapon while moving in and out of the formation and advancing the crowd.

All the stuff about gathering intel against rioting/unlawful Americans is nice and creepy and they definitely aren't saying anything about the Defense Intelligence Agency or National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.

[.............]

b. Collection.

(1) Military information elements having counterintelligence resources will maintain the ability to collect civil disturbance threat data during the period in which there is a distinct threat of actual civil disorder requiring the use of federal military forces.

(2) On activation by the Department of the Army, military intelligence elements having counterintelligence capability will:

(a) Establish and maintain contact with suitable local, state, and federal authorities.

(b) Collect civil disturbance data concerning incidents, and estimate the capability of civil authorities to control the situation. This can be achieved through direct contact with civil authorities.

(c) Report collection results to the Department of the Army in accordance with current plans.

(d) Keep appropriate commanders informed. (e) Provide intelligence support to the Personal Liaison Officer Chief of Staff of the Army.

(f) Recommend methods of overt collection, other than liaison, if required, to the Department of the Army for approval.

(3) Military intelligence elements may employ methods of collection other than liaison only on order of the Department of the Army.

(4) Covert agent operations are not used to obtain civil disturbance data on persons or organizations without specific advance approval of each operation by the Under Secretary of the Army.

(5) Basically, the following vital elements of data will be required for sound planning and operations once approval has been received:

(a) Objectives of elements which are a distinct threat to cause or are causing civil disturbances.

(b) Times and locations of disturbances.

(c) Cause of disturbances.

(d) Existence of persons, groups, or organizations which have distinctively threatened or are creating disturbances.

(e) Estimated number of persons who will be or are involved in civil disturbances. (f) Assembly areas for crowds.

(g) Presence and location of known leaders and persons who are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbances.

(h) Organization and activities planned by the leaders who are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbance.

(i) Source, types and locations of arms, equipment, and supplies available to the leaders who are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbance.

(j) Use of sewers, storm drains, and other underground systems by the elements who are a distinct threat to cause or are causing civil disturbances.

(k) Identification of new techniques and equipment not previously used by elements that are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbances.

(l) Attitude of general masses towards: (a) Groups causing civil disturbances. (b) Civil law enforcement authorities. (c) Federal intervention to control the disturbance.

(m) Possible threat to public property including private utilities. (n) Communications and control methods employed by elements referred to in paragraph 1 above.

PART C - Request for Federal Support/Training 1. Request for Federal Support.

a. Providing military support to state and local governments to assist them in quelling a civil disturbance or riot requires close coordination through a host of state and federal agencies. It requires a though briefing of Soldiers at all levels on what they can and cannot do with respect to law enforcement. Civil authorities must be briefed on the restrictions placed on federal forces by the Constitution of the United States, federal statutes and laws.

b. Under the Constitution of the United States and United State Codes the President is empowered to direct federal intervention in civil disturbances to:

(1) Respond to state request for aid in restoring order (2) Enforce the laws of the United States. (3) Protect the civil rights of citizens (4) Protect federal property and functions.

c. The Secretary of Defense retains approval for federal support to civil authorities involving the use of DOD forces, personnel, and equipment. The Secretary of the Army is the Department of Defense executive agent is the approval authority for federal emergency support in response to natural or man-made disasters (except weapons of mass destruction [WMD]). The Directorate of Military Support (DOMS) plans and executes the DOD domestic support mission to civil authorities. The DOMS is the DOD primary contact for all federal departments and agencies during DOD involvement in most domestic support operations. DOMS is also the staff agency responsible to the Chief of Staff, Army and Secretary of the Army for recommending to them appropriate measures necessary to cope with civil disturbances and terrorism and to transmit the approved recommendations to Department of Defense agencies for execution and to supervise the execution. The missions and functions of DOMS are outlined in AR 500-50. Additional roles of responsibilities of various agencies can be found in FM 3-19.15

Prior to activating federal military forces there is a sequence of steps that must occur. When data begins to show that a disturbance may develop into a situation that will require the help of federal forces, several actions are introduced at the federal level while state and local law enforcement agencies attempt to contain the disorder. Such actions may include increasing the readiness posture of forces named to help the jurisdiction concerned.

d. As the situation worsens and the state employs its National Guard, the U.S. Attorney General would send his personal agent to the scene of the disorder. This agent is named as the Senior Civilian Representative of the Attorney General (SCRAG) and is the organizer of all federal activities in the area of the disorder, including contact with local civil authorities. At the same time, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army would send his personal liaison officer (PLOCSA) to the scene along with members of the Department of the Army Liaison Team (DALT) that serves as his planning staff.

[.........] CROWD CONTROL PAGE 35+

c. Techniques for Crowd Control. There are numerous techniques designed to provide the commander with flexibility of action in accomplishing crowd control. He must select a combination which will produce the desired results within the framework of the selected crowd control option. The most common techniques appropriate for military usage are discussed below.

(1) Observation. This consists of deployment of persons or teams to the periphery of a crowd for the purpose of monitoring its activity. It includes gathering data on crowd size, location, mood, and reporting on the developing situation. This technique includes posting persons on strategic rooftops and other high terrain overlooking the crowd. This latter measure provides additional security to control force personnel should they become committed to other crowd control operations. Such a team may be composed of an expert marksman, a radio operator, and an observer equipped with binoculars. Care must be taken to assure that committed control forces are aware of the locations of such teams to prevent their being mistaken for sniper elements.

(2) Communication of Interest and Intent. In certain situations, effective communication with crowd and mob leaders and participants may enable the commander to control the situation without resorting to more severe actions. When planned and organized demonstrations, marches, or rallies within the disturbed area are announced, the control force commander in coordination with local authorities should meet with organizers of the activity in order to communicate the interest of the control forces. The following matters, as appropriate, should be discussed.

(a) Parade or demonstration permits. (b) Location of demonstration and routes of march. (c) Time limits for the activity. (d) Provision of marshals by activity organizers. (e) Prevention of violence. (f) Safety of all concerned.

(3) The task force commander and local authorities should also communicate to the activity organizers

their intent to cope with violence, unlawful actions, and violations of restrictions imposed on the activity. It is intended that, by this communication between activity organizers and control force personnel, the demonstration, rally, or parade will occur without incident through the mutual cooperation of all concerned. The intentions of control forces will not be effective if delivered as an ultimatum. A limited, begrudging dialogue with activity organizers reduces the opportunity for authorities to learn the plans of the demonstrators. It must be remembered that if this communication is not effected, the activity organizers might well hold the demonstration in defiance of local authorities, thereby creating a potential for violence that might not have existed if this technique had been employed.

d. Channelization. Pressure can be brought to bear on the dissident leadership to channel the crowd into an area which will minimize the disruption when the following requirements are met:

(1) When communications have been established with the dissident leadership.

(2) When the intent and nature of the crowd activity is known.

e. Diversion. When communication exists with the dissident leadership, consideration may be given to efforts to divert the leadership of the crowd itself from its stated or obvious objective. The diversion should support the objectives of the control force either by reducing the strength of the crowd situation or motivating the crowd to seek an area more easily controlled by the control force.

f. Cooperation. Decreasing the potential disruption of the crowd activity may be accomplished by an active attempt on the part of the control force to obtain cooperation of the dissident leadership. Whenever there is an attempt by the crowd leadership to seek permission and cooperation of the local government, every effort should be made to maximize this cooperation by demonstrating an attitude of facilitation. This may be accomplished by helping the leadership to organize a peaceful demonstration while establishing guidelines which will minimize the impact of the demonstration on the community.

g. Selection of Force Options.

(1) The commitment of federal military forces must be viewed as a drastic last resort. Their role, therefore, should never be greater than is absolutely necessary under the particular circumstances which exist. This does not mean, however, that the number of Soldiers used should be minimized. The degree of force required to control a disorder is often inversely proportionate to the number of available personnel. Doubts concerning the number of Soldiers required should normally be resolved in favor of large numbers since the presence of such large numbers may prevent the development of situations in which the use of deadly force is necessary. A large reserve of Soldiers should be maintained during civil disturbance operations. The knowledge that a large reserve force is available builds morale among military and law enforcement personnel and helps to prevent overreaction to annoying acts by unruly persons.

(2) In selecting an operational approach to a civil disturbance situation, the commander and his staff must follow the "minimum necessary force" principle; for example, crowd control formations or crowd control agents should not be used if the area filled with manpower would be sufficient.

(3) Every effort should be made to avoid appearing as an alien invading force and to present the image of a restrained and well-disciplined force whose sole purpose is to help to restore law and order with a minimum loss of life and property and due respect for those citizens whose involvement may be purely accidental. Further, while crowd control personnel should be visible, tactical, or force concentrations which might tend to excite rather than to calm should be avoided where possible.

(4) The normal reflex action of the well-trained combat Soldier to sniper fire is to respond with all firepower available. In a civil disturbance, this tactic endangers innocent people more than snipers. The preferred tactic is to allow a special reaction team (SRT) who is trained for this type of mission, to enter the building from which sniper fire starts. Keeping with the controlling principle that the team must use only the minimum force necessary to fulfill the mission, the commander may select any one of the following options for arming his Soldiers:

(a) Riot Shield. In the hands of a well trained soldier, the riot shield can be utilized as both a defensive and offensive weapon when contact is made with an aggressive crowd. The primary use of the riot shield is for defense of the line. However, each riot shield holder must be proficient in its retention. The Soldier holding the shield must be trained to react when a demonstrator grabs the top of the shield by slapping with his strong hand and gives the following command" Get back", "Get away" "Stop". If a rioter grabs the bottom of the shield the Soldier should be trained in forcefully dropping to one knee and pinning the rioters' fingers to the ground.

(b) Baton. The baton is most effective in a crowd control operation and is considered the primary weapon for crowd control operations. The baton is considered to be an offensive weapon with reduced lethality and unlike the rifle, the loss of a baton to the crowd does not create a serious threat. Soldier must be trained with the riot baton to the point its various techniques are automatic to them. This training must also include the vulnerable points on the body so they can avoid areas that may cause permanent injury or death when struck.

Currently there are two types of riot batons, wooden and expandable. The most common one is the 36 inch hickory riot baton with thong. There is also the 24-inch to 36 inch expandable riot baton, which has been added to the nonlethal capabilities set. Each Solder within the control force need to be proficiently trained in all techniques for blocking and striking. Improper use of the riot baton by an untrained Soldier has the potential for creating a greater problem than what already exist.

(c) Shotgun. The 12 gage shotgun is a pump action shotgun currently in the nonlethal capabilities set (NLCS) inventory. The pump action shotgun is chambered to take up to 3-inch shells. The 3- inch chamber allows for the use of M1012 and M1013 NL munitions. This shotgun also provides a visually distinct alternative to the standard military issues weapon.

(d) Rifle. The rifle, if capable of automatic fire, must be modified to prevent automatic operation. Keeping with the controlling principle of using only the minimum force necessary to fulfill the mission. If the Soldier are equipped with their long weapons and are in the front lines of the formation, the weapon should be carried across their back from left to right with the muzzle of the weapon pointed down and the butt of the weapon pointed up. The weapon should be cleared and the magazine in the proper ammunition pouch.

(e) Non lethal weapons and munitions. Nonlethal weapons and munitions are an additional asset afforded to the commander in civil disturbance and are preferred over lethal force. The showing of force with nonlethal weapons and munitions may assist in crowd dispersing, separate, or leave the area with minimal causalities. This nonlethal capability set (NLCS) is a well-rounded, versatile package of both equipment and munitions. NLCS are dived into four distinct categories: personnel protection, personnel effectors, mission enhancers and training devices

(f) While each of the above options represents an escalation in the level of force, they are not sequential in the sense that a commander must initially select the first option, or proceed from one to another in any particular order. So long as the option selected is appropriate, considering the

existing threat, the minimum necessary force principle is not violated.

1. The rifle and rifle with bayonet attached have extremely limited offensive use as both may constitute deadly force. The primary value of the rifle or the rifle with bayonet attached is the psychological impact on the crowd. While the use of fixed bayonets can add considerably to this effect, the danger of intentional or accidental injury to demonstrators or fellow control force personnel prevents such use except with extremely violent crowds.

2. Fire by selected marksmen. Fire by selected marksmen may be necessary under certain circumstances. Marksmen should be pre-selected, trained, and thoroughly instructed. They may be placed on vehicles, in buildings, or elsewhere as required.

3. Full firepower. The most severe measure of force that can be applied by Soldiers is that of available unit firepower with the intent of producing extensive casualties. This extreme measure would be used as a last resort only after all other measures have failed or obviously would be impractical, and the consequence of failure to completely subdue the crowd would be an imminent overthrow of the government, continued mass casualties, or similar grievous conditions.

4. Shotgun. The riot shotgun is an extremely versatile weapon; its appearance and capability also produce a strong psychological effect on rioters. It is particularly suited to certain applications in civil disturbance operations. When used with No. 00 buckshot ammunition, it is an excellent point target weapon extremely effective at limited range. By varying the nonlethal munitions' M1012 and M1013 the weapon can be employed with considerably less possibility of serious injury or death. This provides the commander with a desirable flexibility in selecting the ammunition most appropriate under the existing conditions

(g) The measures described in paragraphs 1 through 5 below, may be applied in any order as deemed suitable by the responsible commander as long as his application is consonant with prescribed confrontation management techniques outlined earlier.

(1) Proclamation. A public announcement is considered an excellent medium to make known to a crowd the intentions of the control force commander. In some cases, such an announcement makes further action unnecessary. An announcement puts the population on notice that the situation demands extraordinary military measures, prepares the people to accept military presence, tends to inspire respect from lawless elements and supports law-abiding elements, gives psychological aid to the military forces trying to restore order, and shows to all concerned the gravity with which the situation is viewed. In making a proclamation, a commander may consider imposing a time limit. However, the situation may change, and not imposing a time limit may leave the commander other options as he sees fit, as long as the proclamation is specific in its instruction.

(2) Show of Force. A show of force is effective in various situations in civil disorder control operations. A show of force may as simple as Soldier dismounting from buses or trucks in plan sight of the demonstrators, but must be far enough away to prevent a provoked attack of thrown objects. When a crowd has gathered in a large area, show of force can take the form of marching a well-equipped, highly disciplined control force into their midst. When persons are scattered throughout the disturbance area in small groups, a show of force may take the form of motor marches of Soldiers throughout the area, saturation patrolling, and the manning of static posts or similar measures.

(3) Employment of Crowd Control Formations. Crowd control formations are used to contain,

disperse, block or break up a non conforming crowd; these crowd control formations are more effective in urban areas than they are in open fields or parks. When this method is utilized in urban areas, it is easy to disperse or split the crowd into small groups, isolate instigators, or funnel a crowd into a desired area. The use of such formations is part of the show of force and has a strong psychological effect on any crowd.

(4) Employment of Water. Water from a high pressure hose may be effective in moving small groups on a narrow front such as a street or in defending a barricade or roadblock. Personnel applying water should be protected by riflemen and in some cases by shields. In the use of water, the factors discuss below should be considered.

(a) Water may be used as a flat trajectory weapon utilizing pressure, or as a high trajectory weapon using water as a rainfall. The latter is highly effective during cold weather.

(b) The use of a large water tank (750 to 1,000 gallons) and a power water pump mounted on a truck with a high pressure hose and nozzle capable of searching and traversing will enable Soldiers to use water as they advance. By having at least two such water trucks, one can be held in reserve for use when required.

(c) In using water, as with other measures of force, certain restraints must be applied. Using water on innocent bystanders, such as women and children, should be avoided; ways to escape must be provided; and the more severe use, flat trajectory application, should be used only when absolutely necessary.

(d) Fire departments are normally associated with lifesaving practices rather than maintenance of law and order. In order to maintain this image, fire department equipment will not be used for riot control and crowd dispersal.

(e) Use of Crowd Control Agents. Crowd control agents are extremely useful in civil disorder control operations because they offer a humane and effective method of reducing resistance and lessen requirements for the application of more severe measures of force. Task force commanders are authorized to delegate the authority to use crowd control agents and other forms of non lethal force at their discretion.

2. Establish Area Control.

a. General. Acts of violence, such as looting, arson, and vandalism, are greatly reduced when the physical and psychological influence of lawlessness is defeated. In establishing effective area control, commanders must recognize the problem of widespread looting and arson that has accompanied most large urban disorders. Performance of this task consists of reducing or eliminating those conditions which contribute to the outbreak or continuation of lawlessness in the disturbed area.

(1) Looting. When dealing with persons involved in looting, extreme care and adherence to the principle of minimum force must be observed. Looting may start at any time or place as an isolated incident and spread quickly throughout the affected areas. Looting is not limited to any particular sex or age group; it includes the very old, the very young, women, and children. For example, many children may be looting without any idea of how serious their actions are. In the control of looting, unit leaders must recognize that deadly force is not authorized.

(2) Anti-looting. Unit commanders must be familiar with anti-looting measures which can be taken by civil authorities, such as boarding up broken or unbroken windows, covering windows with photo-

luminescent particles, and by the prompt posting of looting penalty proclamations. Anti-looting actions that can be taken by military forces include the establishment of foot and motor patrols, the posting of fixed guard posts, and the lighting of likely areas for looting. Guards at fixed posts will be briefed not to leave their posts to pursue individual looters on foot, but to remain on post and prevent looters from approaching their areas of responsibility. All guards must be briefed that looters will not be fired upon nor will deadly force be used to catch looters.

(3) Protected or Sensitive Commercial Establishments. A main consideration in the conduct of civil disturbance operations is to prevent liquor, drugs, weapons, and ammunition from falling into the hands of rioters. Therefore, liquor stores, drug stores, sporting good shops, pawn shops, and hardware stores are main targets for looters and must be kept under close observation by means of foot and motorized patrols. Normally, businesses of this type must be identified in advance and included in emergency plans.

(4) Arson. Arson is generally defined as a crime of purposely setting fire to a building or property. Acts of setting fire to buildings, property, etc., often follow disturbances. Certain situations may arise in controlling arson where the use of deadly force is authorized and necessary.

[.........] PAGE 40

(2) Imposed Restrictions. Except in the unlikely event of martial law, federal military forces will not have the authority to impose restrictions such as a curfew on the civilian population. Certain restrictions, however, may be imposed by civilian authorities to help in the control of lawlessness. Military leaders should be prepared to recommend which restrictions are of substantial value in comparison with the burden of enforcement. The most commonly used restrictions include:

Curfew. The curfew is a control measure which has proved highly effective in many civil disturbances. Its purpose is to restrict the unauthorized movement of personnel on streets and public places during specified periods of time, especially during the hours of darkness. Joint planning with civil authorities regarding the imposition of a curfew should provide for:

(a) Coordination of the initiation, enforcement, and termination of a curfew.

(b) Public announcements of the beginning and ending of curfews. Civilian authorities make these announcements through local mass media, pamphlets, and public address systems to ensure maximum exposure.

(c) Curfew exemptions and guidance on who should receive them, including written authorization or passes.

(d) Provision for the apprehension and disposition of curfew violators.

(3) Sales Restrictions. Restrictions on the sale, transfer, and possession of sensitive material such as gasoline, firearms, ammunition, and explosives will help control forces in minimizing certain forms of violence. Limiting the availability of weapons to the potential sniper or terrorist may reduce the likelihood of such violence. The effective enforcement of these restrictions, however, requires extensive planning and the commitment of adequate manpower to this effort.

So much for the Second Amendment SUCKAZ....

[.........] PAGE 22+

f. Army Detention Facilities.

(1) The Army will not operate facilities for confinement, custody, or detention of civilian personnel apprehended for violation of local or state laws as long as civil confinement facilities, operated by the Department of Justice, state, or local agencies are sufficient to accommodate the number of persons apprehended.

(2) When it appears that available local facilities are insufficient, due to the large number of persons apprehended or detained, and this fact can be verified by the person or agency responsible for the facilities, temporary confinement/detention facilities may be operated with prior approval from DA, specifically, the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army. These facilities will be operated only until custody of the persons detained can be transferred to and assumed by civil authorities. They will not be used for the confinement of persons charged or convicted under civil jurisdiction.

(3) Temporary confinement/detention facilities can be developed from local federal facilities provided they are adaptable to the requirements of custody and control. Such facilities should be established, if possible, within the affected area; this will conserve time, transportation, and escort personnel.

However, if no suitable federal property is available within the affected area, they can be located elsewhere on any property under federal control as long as the persons to be detained are apprehended in the affected area. Whenever such temporary facilities are established during civil disturbance control operations, the Army is responsible for providing those personnel, facilities, and supplies necessary for the custody, control, health, comfort, and sustenance of persons detained.

(4) Officers and key NCOs specifically trained and experienced in confinement operations are required to operate such facilities. Guards and support function personnel operating under the direct control of such officers and NCOs need not be specifically trained or experienced in confinement operations as long as they are under close and continuing supervision of trained responsible personnel. Whenever females are detained, they must be held in physically separate detention facilities and under the control of selected female guards operating under the supervision of trained and experienced confinement personnel.

(5) Temporary detention facilities should be constructed and arranged to provide for adequate custody, control, and safety of detainees. It is advisable to use existing permanent-type buildings. Where sufficient permanent structures are not available, only that amount of new construction required for temporary custody, control, and administration of prisoners should be accomplished. Temporary field- type facilities provide compartments to assure effective control.

(6) The same operational procedures that apply to the operation of installation confinement facilities and treatment of detainees apply to these temporary facilities except that those policies and procedures establishing training, employment, mail and correspondence, and administrative discipline requirements will not apply. Detailed guidance in procedures for confinement of detainees is contained in EPW Operations, FM 3-19.40.

g. Special Equipment. Certain items of equipment available to military and civil police forces can do much to limit injuries to civilian and military personnel and destruction of property. These items increase the psychological effects of a show of force and offer additional protection and versatility to civil disturbance forces during the operations.

(1) The 12 gage shotgun is a pup action shotgun currently in the non lethal capabilities set (NLCS) inventory. The pump action shotgun is chambered to take up to 3-inch shells. The 3-inchchamber allows for the use of M1012 and M1013 NL munitions. This shotgun also provides a visually distinct alternative to standard military weapons that may be desired based on mission considerations.

(2) The shotgun, as in the case of other firearms used in civil disturbance operations, is fired only on the orders of a qualified superior officer when lesser measures of force are not effective, or when the individual Soldier has no other means of protecting his life.

(3) The M7 is a 66-millimeter vehicle-mounted NL grenade-launching device that is mounted on a HMMWV. It is a indirect fire support system that can deliver the M99 blunt trauma grenade that creates a sting-ball effect. The M315 installation kit is used to install an M7 discharger on the turret ring of appropriate HMMWV variants. An adjustable bracket allows the launch angle to be depressed for engaging targets at ranges of 50, 75 and 100 meters. The system enforces standoff distances and deters potential threats.

(4) The M1012 is a single projectile round made of hard rubber that is shaped like a bomblet and designed to be fired at a single target. With the muzzle velocity of 500 feet per second, the M1012 as the effective range of no closer that 5 meters and no further that 30 meters. Engagement inside of 5 meters could result in serious bodily injury or death. Beyond 30 meters the kinetic dissipates to the point where the round becomes ineffective.

(5) The M1013 is a multiple projectile round with .23 caliber hard rubber pellets that is designed to be fired at and employed with the purpose of affecting multiple targets. With a muzzle velocity of 900 feet per second, the M1013 has an effective range of no closer than 5 meters and no further that 30 meters. Engagements of less than 5 meter can result in seriously bodily injury or death. Beyond 30 meters the kinetic dissipates to the point where the round becomes ineffective

(6) The midsize riot control disperser (M37) is the size of a standard fire extinguisher that uses compressed air to force the RCA out to a range of 30 feet. It has the capacity to employ 18 burst of RCA into a hostile crowd while maintaining excellent standoff capabilities. The M37 can be refilled and is rechargeable. It can be refilled with CR solution (liquid agent) or CS (dry agent). For the purport of training the M37 can be filled with water and CS can be substituted with talcum power.

(7) The Squad riot control agent disperser (M33A1) is designed to provide crowd control and protection at the squad level. It is capable of projecting a ballistic stream of RCA's beyond 25 feet in up to 25 half- seconds burst. It consists of a frame and harness assembly, compressed-gas cylinder (agent container assembly) air pressure assembly, gun and hose assembly, multi-jet spray unit, and check valve assembly. The M33A1 can be refilled and is rechargeable. For training purposes, CR can be substituted with water and CS and be substituted with talcum power.

(8) The above mention items are but just a few of the non lethal weapons and munitions available to the commander and unit to utilize during a response to the civil disturbance, and can be utilized to train and prepare Soldiers. Additional non lethal weapons and munitions as well as protective gear can be found in FM 3-19.15.

3. Vehicles. Armored vehicles and transport vehicles add to the readiness of the crowd control force. The use of these vehicles increases flexibility, reduces troop commitments, and provides protection for personnel. In considering the use of vehicles, however, it must be remembered that they should be secured by foot elements.

a. Armored Security Vehicles (ASV) can be used in several ways to keep the effects of civil disturbances at a minimum.

(1) Their use adds a considerable psychological effect to riot control formations while providing added protection for Soldiers. They provide a readily accessible barrier for Soldiers to crouch behind if necessary, and excellent protection for those inside.

(2) Their use as mobile command posts offers the added advantages of security, communication, and mobility.

(3) They are well adaptable to roadblock operations providing the advantages listed above, while at the same time providing an excellent barrier.

(4) Their use for patrolling an area of violence adds to the psychological effect, and allows Soldiers to maneuver in close to snipers in order to make an apprehension.

b. Standard military transport vehicles can be modified with sandbags, armor plating, wire screening, or similar materials to give some protection against sniper fire and thrown objects. They provide mobility and communication capability for area coverage. Soldiers should be deployed with ample vehicles to provide sufficient flexibility to handle all situations in an area of civil disturbance. TOE allowances should probably be increased for this purpose.

3. Other Equipment. In addition to the special equipment discussed above, certain other items should be available for use in operations within the disturbance area.

a. Armored vests and protective masks are required for anti-sniping operations and at other times when violence is expected. Flexibility is an important consideration. For example, the limitation on visibility must be considered when requiring the use of protective masks, and the limitation on mobility when wearing the armored vests.

b. Successful conduct of the overall operation may depend on other items. Auxiliary lighting should be available to include hand-portable lights, vehicular-mounted searchlights, spotlights, flood-lights, flashlights, flares (with caution toward fires), and vehicle headlights. Prefabricated wood or metal barriers, or suitable materials, such as wire or ropes, may be used to block off an area; signs should be provided to supplement these barriers. Evidence equipment, including movie and still cameras with telescopic lenses, and recording devices should be obtained and placed into position.

c. Other items of equipment should also be provided. Helicopters should be used for observation, communication relay, illumination, resupply, reserve displacement, and numerous other tasks. Adequate firefighting and fire protection equipment are vital in civil disturbance.

d. Provisions should be made for appropriate communications equipment for use at the scene and between the scene and the operations headquarters. Every available means of communications to include public address systems--both hand-portable and vehicle-mounted--should be used.

PART E - Operational Tasks

1. General. In any civil disturbance operation, certain tasks must be accomplished to reach the ultimate objective of restoring and maintaining law and order. To do this, action must be taken to gain control of the situation. Control forces must perform certain tasks that will develop a physical and psychological environment which will permit law enforcement personnel to enforce the law and maintain order. The importance of having a high degree of flexibility and selectively in the response cannot be overemphasized. It is just as important that the tasks selected be completed only after a careful evaluation of the situation. This evaluation must consider the particular uniqueness of the situation. In this respect, the commander selects those tasks that are most likely to reduce the intensity of the given situation. Therefore, not all tasks will apply in all situations, but control force commanders and unit leaders must identify those tasks which must be performed and then develop plans and procedures for their accomplishment. The operational and integrated tasks listed below are discussed in detail in the paragraphs and lessons to follow.

a. Operational Tasks. (1) Isolate the area. (2) Secure likely targets. (3) Control crowds or mobs. (4) Establish area control. (5) Neutralize special threats.

b. Integrated Tasks.

(1) Gather, record, and report information. (2) Apprehend violators. (3) Maintain communications. (4) Maintain mobile reserves.

(5) Inform the public. (6) Protect the fire service operations. (7) Process detained personnel.

2. Isolate the Area.

a. This task includes the restriction and sealing off of the disturbed area. The objectives of sealing off the disturbed area are to prevent the disorder from spreading to unaffected areas, to prevent escape of persons bent on expanding the disturbance, to speed up the exit of the uninvolved, and to exclude unauthorized personnel from entering the affected area. In order to prevent the disturbance from expanding in size and strength, it is critical to prevent the inflow of extra demonstrators or curious onlookers into the disturbed area.

b. When military forces are committed to helping the civil authorities in controlling civil disturbances, the situation will be beyond the capability of local law enforcement agencies and a scene of major disorder should be expected. This disorder may be characterized by small, dispersed groups which are looting, burning, and generally causing havoc in the area, or it may be characterized by large groups participating in varying degrees of illegal conduct. The initial action taken by military forces to control the disorder is critical and should include the immediate isolation of the disturbed area.

c. The initial commitment of control force personnel may be required to clear a building or an area in order to isolate the persons creating the disturbance from those not yet motivated or actively involved. The primary emphasis should be on identifying what area and who has to be isolated.

3. Isolated Techniques. There are several techniques to use when isolating a disturbed area.

a. Barricades and Roadblocks. Barricades and roadblocks are physical barriers which deny or limit entry into and exit from the disturbed area. They can be used to totally deny passage of people and vehicles or to permit certain designated categories of persons and vehicles to pass. They must be positioned so as to prevent their being bypassed, surrounded, or cut off from support. In many cases, it may be impractical to physically seal an area due to the physical and geographical considerations, such as in the case of a college campus or a suburban area.

b. Barricades Against Personnel. Civil disturbance operations contingency planning should provide for the availability of portable barricades which slow down the passage of personnel. Concertina wire is a suitable material for rapid construction and effectiveness, although wooden sawhorses, ropes, and other field expedient devices may suffice. Concertina wire should be used sparingly and only under serious circumstances as it is indicative of violent disorders.

c. Roadblocks Against Vehicles. The erection of effective roadblocks which cannot be easily breached by vehicles requires large, heavy construction materials. One item that can be stockpiled in advance is 55- gallon drums to be filled with water or earth on site. Other materials include sandbags, earthworks, trees, or heavy vehicles. Several roadblocks placed at intervals of 25 to 50 feet provide sufficient depth to prevent breaches by heavy or high-speed vehicles.

d. Construction Considerations. The construction of barricades and roadblocks should provide cover from small arms fire where this threat is likely. Provisions should be for night illumination of approaches to the position; however, care must be taken not to silhouette the personnel manning it. Construction materials which would chip or shatter upon impact by thrown objects should be covered with canvas or sandbags to prevent injuries from flying fragments. Warning signs should be placed in front of the position directing authorized personnel not to approach the position. One technique of providing a quickly erected barrier is the use of vehicles parked bumper to bumper; however, this procedure may subject the vehicles to damage by a hostile crowd. Another device which may be effectively used both as a barricade and a part of a formation is the use of a locally built frame of wood or metal with wire covering.

e. Perimeter Patrols. Perimeter patrols should be established to prevent entry or exit from the disturbed area, particularly by persons or groups trying to bypass barricades and roadblocks. These patrols operate along the outer operational boundary of the disturbed area. Perimeter patrols can be integrated with area patrol routes within the disturbed area.

f. Pass and Identification Systems. Unit, installation, or municipal contingency planning should include a pass and identification system providing for the entry and exit of authorized personnel to and from the isolated area. Procedures should be established for press personnel, emergency medical personnel, public utility work crews, and for any other personnel who have a legitimate purpose for entering and exiting the isolated area. Consideration must be given to those persons residing within the disturbed area who must travel to and from work. An effective pass and identification system requires careful and detailed planning as a contingency measure.

g. Public Utility Control. Ensure that civil authorities have established a means for controlling public utilities to include street lights, gas, electric, water, and telephone services so that they may be turned on or off to support the tactics employed by the control forces.

4. Secure Likely Targets.

a. General. Certain buildings, utilities, and services are critical to the economic and physical well-being of a community and require security to prevent disruption of essential functions. In addition, certain facilities and buildings have become symbolic targets to radical or extremist elements and should be identified and afforded protection with the priorities established. Among the likely targets to be attacked are control force command posts, billeting areas, and motor parks. Another potential problem in civil disturbance operations is the threat posed by dissident elements intent on doing bodily harm to control force personnel and civilian dignitaries in the disturbed area. When such threats exist, military personnel may have to be committed to security operations. In particular, security must be placed on armories, arsenals, hardware, and sporting good stores, pawnshops, and gunsmith establishments, or other places where weapons or ammunition are stored. To conserve manpower, consideration may be given to evacuating sensitive items, such as weapons from stores and storing them in a central facility. Priorities for physical security must be established to prevent waste of available forces on less important facilities or those which have their own physical security forces. The degree of security necessary to protect various buildings and utilities is determined by considering the following: [..............]

It goes on.... Again the page is here. I'll leave it here to get this posted now. Check it out and be sure to get a handle on CONPLAN 3502 and other aspects of domestic military operations planning frameworks -- when similar emergency/disaster scenarios happen (i.e. Katrina) you see military personnel acting like this...

REX-84 under Iran Contra was 'then', and 'now' a literal US Army war to save the criminal banks from angry mobs is basically what's planned. Under this plan a nation ripped off & crippled by LIBOR peta-scale financial scams leaves forces like the military on the hook for defending the organized ring of criminals operating banks, i.e. "services ... critical to the economic... well-being of a community". What is the Pentagon supposed to do about the fact that the critical infrastructure is often operated by the criminally insane -- the very people who have pushed the US most of the way to the point where terrifying emergency plans like those above spring to life? X-(

FAA Sets Large ND Drone Training Airspace - Federal Register Makes It So

The plan to convert America, and the world, into a hellish dystopia patrolled by killer flying robots continues apace with a fine fanciful scheme for flying more drones around North Dakota. It is apparently controlled by the FAA Minneapolis office to some extent.

PublicIntelligence.net reported more on the drone scheme at http://publicintelligence.net/dod-us-drone-activities-map/

According to their data, doom bogies to keep an eye on include:
Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND Air Force Global Hawk, Predator - Future
Camp Ripley, MN Army Shadow - Current
Fargo, ND Air Force Predator - Current
Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD Air Force Predator - Future

Via the crucial Cryptome.org : http://cryptome.org/2012/06/faa062012.htm

20 June 2012

FAA Sets Large ND Drone Training Airspace

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36907-36914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15008]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 36907]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0117; Airspace Docket No. 09-AGL-31]


Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-
5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F; Devils Lake, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action establishes restricted area airspace within the 
Devils Lake Military Operations Area (MOA), overlying Camp Grafton 
Range, in the vicinity of Devils Lake, ND. The new restricted areas 
permit realistic training in modern tactics to be conducted at Camp 
Grafton Range while ensuring the safe and efficient use of the National 
Airspace System (NAS) in the Devils Lake, ND, area. Unlike restricted 
areas which are designated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 
(14 CFR) part 73, MOAs are not regulatory airspace. However, since the 
restricted areas overlap the Devils Lake East MOA, the FAA is including 
a description of the Devils Lake East MOA change in this rule. The MOA 
change described herein will be published in the National Flight Data 
Digest (NFDD).

DATES: Effective Dates: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations 
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    On November 28, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Restricted Areas R-
5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F in the 
vicinity of Devils Lake, ND (76 FR 72869). Interested parties were 
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written 
comments on the proposal. In response to public request, the FAA 
extended the comment period for 30 additional days (77 FR 1656; January 
11, 2012). There were 43 comments received in response to the NPRM with 
42 opposing various aspects of the proposal and one comment supporting 
the proposal as published. All comments received were considered before 
making a determination on this final rule. The following is a 
discussion of the substantive comments received and the agency's 
response.

Discussion of Comments

    One commenter contended that the 500 feet above ground level (AGL) 
base for R-5402 would impact low level, aerial operations such as crop 
dusters, wildlife and agricultural surveys, and emergency medical 
access. The FAA recognizes that when active, R-5402 would restrict 
nonparticipating aircraft from operating within its boundaries. To 
mitigate impacts to the aviation activities described above, the United 
States Air Force (USAF) has agreed to implement scheduling coordination 
measures to de-conflict laser operations and accommodate access by 
local farming, ranching, survey, and medical aviation interests when 
they need to fly in or through R-5402, when it is active.
    Another commenter noted that VFR traffic would have to 
circumnavigate active restricted airspace resulting in increased time 
and distances flown. The FAA acknowledges restricted area airspace 
segregates nonparticipating aircraft from hazardous activities 
occurring inside the restricted area and that, on occasion, 
nonparticipating aircraft affected by the restricted area will have to 
deviate from preferred routings to remain clear. The lateral boundaries 
and altitudes of the restricted area complex were defined to minimize 
impacts to nonparticipant aircraft, yet still support the military in 
accomplishing its training mission. The subdivided configuration of the 
restricted area complex, the altitude stratifications, and the entire 
restricted area complex designated as ``joint use,'' affords 
nonparticipant aircraft access to the portions of restricted area 
airspace not in use by the military to the greatest extent possible.
    One commenter expressed concern that segregating airspace for new 
types of aircraft sets a dangerous precedent. The FAA agrees and 
maintains its policy to establish restricted area airspace when 
determined necessary to confine or segregate activities considered 
hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The FAA considers UAS 
operations to be non-hazardous. However, the FAA recognizes that some 
UAS platforms have the ability to employ hazardous ordnance or sensors. 
Since the MQ-1 Predator [UAS] laser is non-eye safe and will be used 
during training sorties flown by the military, its use constitutes a 
hazardous activity that must be confined within restricted area 
airspace to protect nonparticipating aircraft.
    Two commenters suggested that Special Use Airspace (SUA) should be 
ceded back to civil control when not in use. The FAA proposed that the 
restricted areas be designated as ``joint use'' airspace, specifically 
to afford the highest level of access to NAS users and limit this 
access only when necessary. This rule provides that when the restricted 
areas are not needed by the using agency, the airspace will be returned 
to the controlling agency, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control 
Center, for access by other NAS users.
    Another commenter recommended that the proposed restricted area 
airspace be developed for concurrent use. The FAA considered the 
commenters use of ``concurrent use'' to mean ``sharing the same 
airspace, at the same time, between participating and nonparticipating 
aircraft.'' As noted previously, restricted areas are established to 
confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to 
nonparticipating aircraft; such as dropping bombs, firing guns/
missiles/rockets, or lasing with a non-eye safe laser. Concurrent use, 
as described above, would not be prudent in such an environment as it 
constitutes an unacceptable risk to nonparticipating aircraft.
    Twenty-two commenters stated that the proposed restricted areas 
should

[[Page 36908]]

have been developed in conjunction with the North Dakota Airspace 
Integration Team (NDAIT), a group formed to find solutions to UAS 
integration into the NAS, as well as coordinate UAS activities state-
wide. To clarify, the focus of this proposed action is consideration of 
establishing restricted areas to support hazardous military training 
activities, not UAS integration into the NAS. The FAA notes that the 
NDAIT was not established until after the USAF airspace proposal was 
submitted to the FAA and many of the NDAIT members took the opportunity 
to submit comments on the proposal.
    One commenter stated that the proposed airspace should be 
environmentally assessed for the broad array of military aircraft that 
would be expected to employ in conjunction with UAS. The FAA agrees and 
has confirmed that the Environmental Impact Statement for the bed down 
of the MQ-1 Predator at Grand Forks Air Force Base (AFB) addresses 
other aircraft that would likely train with the UAS in the proposed 
restricted area airspace complex.
    Another commenter stated that the proposed restricted area airspace 
would eventually be activated almost full time as is the current 
Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) over Grand Forks AFB. The TFR 
referred to by the commenter is contained in the Special Security 
Instruction authorized under 14 CFR 99.7 for Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) UAS operations conducted from Grand Forks AFB. 
Although the TFR is active while the CBP UAS is flying, it allows 
airspace access by non-participant aircraft using procedural separation 
rules. The restricted areas proposed by this action are being 
established with specific times of designation, to support the 
hazardous non-eye safe laser training conducted by the USAF. The times 
are described by ``core hours'' and also may be activated by NOTAM to 
allow for training periods outside the core hours, i.e. at night.
    Twenty commenters argued that the proposal is contrary to FAA 
policy, in that it is designed for the sole purpose of separating non-
hazardous types of VFR aircraft. The FAA has established this 
restricted area airspace to confine the MQ-1 Predator employment of a 
non-eye safe targeting laser, which is hazardous to nonparticipating 
pilots. This laser training for UAS pilots must be contained in 
restricted areas to confine the hazardous activity, as well as protect 
non-participating aircraft flying in the vicinity of the restricted 
areas. Even though the Predator operations in the restricted areas will 
normally occur in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), the UAS will 
be on an IFR flight plan in accordance with U.S. Air Force 
requirements.
    Two commenters requested that the FAA establish a formal, annual 
review process and public report on the use and impacts of any 
designated airspace associated with UAS activity in Grand Forks, ND. 
The request to establish a formal annual review process with public 
reporting on use and impacts falls outside the scope of this proposed 
action. However, the FAA has a Restricted Area Annual Utilization 
reporting program already established to assist the FAA in managing 
special use airspace areas established throughout the NAS. These annual 
utilization reports provide objective information regarding the types 
of activities being conducted, as well as the times scheduled, 
activated, and actual use, which the FAA uses to assess the appropriate 
use of the restricted areas.
    Nineteen commenters recommended that proposed restricted airspace 
have a ``sunset'' date. The restricted areas are established to confine 
hazardous non-eye safe laser training, which will continue as long as 
the Predator UAS are operating from Grand Forks AFB. Technology 
developments to integrate UAS into the NAS with manned aircraft, as 
well as military Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) maturation 
may provide an opportunity to reconfigure the restricted area airspace 
at a future date, but the requirement for restricted area airspace will 
exist as long as the non-eye safe laser training is conducted.
    One commenter recommended a requirement for equipping the UAS with 
forward viewing sensors that would enable the UAS to comply with 14 CFR 
part 91 see-and-avoid rules. While the FAA is working with the industry 
to develop see-and-avoid solutions for the safe and eventual seamless 
integration of UAS into the NAS, this suggestion is outside the scope 
of this action.
    One commenter asked that the proposal be tabled until the FAA 
publishes its final Order/Advisory Circular regarding UAS operations in 
the NAS. The Order/Advisory Circular address the integration of UAS in 
the NAS, which is separate from the action of establishing restricted 
area airspace to confine hazardous non-eye safe laser training 
activities. This action is necessary to support the military's training 
requirement beginning this summer. The FAA is completing this airspace 
action separate from its UAS NAS integration guidance development 
efforts.
    Several commenters recommended that instead of creating new SUA for 
these activities that the USAF use existing restricted areas or the 
airspace subject to flight restrictions under Sec.  99.7 SSI and used 
by the Customs & Border Protection Agency (CBP) at Grand Forks AFB. The 
FAA advocates the use of existing SUA and requires proponents to 
examine all reasonable alternatives, prior to considering the need to 
establish new SUA. In this case, the USAF conducted an extensive 
analysis of alternatives and considered criteria including proximity to 
Grand Forks AFB, existence of a suitable air-to-ground range for laser 
targeting, and air traffic density both en route and at the training 
complex. The Beaver MOA in north central Minnesota is approximately 
three times as far as the proposed airspace, has much heavier air 
traffic density, and has no air-to-ground gunnery range. The Tiger MOAs 
in north central North Dakota are the same distance as the proposed 
airspace, have favorable air traffic density, but have no air-to-ground 
gunnery range. The airspace in the vicinity of the existing CBP Sec.  
99.7 SSI flight restriction would be closer, but has much higher 
traffic density and complexity, and has no air-to-ground range. 
Additionally, there were no useable restricted areas within reasonable 
distance of Grand Forks AFB for consideration. The FAA believes the 
USAF considered and analyzed the alternatives to this action and that 
establishing new SUA is the only reasonable option.
    One commenter suggested that the restricted area complex be moved 
north of Devils Lake. The FAA notes that the USAF studied an 
alternative of establishing restricted areas in the Tiger North and 
Tiger South MOAs, located north of Devils Lake, ND. While proximity to 
Grand Forks AFB and the air traffic density compared favorably to the 
proposed airspace area, the lack of an air-to-ground gunnery range 
suitable for hazardous laser training made this option operationally 
unfeasible. The FAA accepted the USAF's consideration and analysis of 
this alternative and proposed establishing the restricted areas set 
forth in this action.
    One commenter recommended that the proposed airspace be moved to 
another state as it would impact flying training in the vicinity of 
Grand Forks. This airspace proposal resulted from Congress' Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission of 2005 decision to retain Grand 
Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota for an emerging UAS mission. As 
addressed previously, Beaver MOA in north central Minnesota is the 
nearest SUA outside of North Dakota. It was approximately three times 
the distance from Grand Forks AFB, has much higher

[[Page 36909]]

air traffic density airspace, and has no air-to-ground gunnery range 
for hazardous laser training. The FAA recognizes the proposed 
restricted areas could impact civil flight training, largely conducted 
by the University of North Dakota and east of the proposed complex. 
Additionally, nearly all civil flight training activity that currently 
occurs in the vicinity of the restricted areas would take place below 
the proposed R-5403 footprint. Whereas the floor of R-5402 goes down to 
500 feet above ground level (AGL), its cylinder footprint was reduced 
to a 7 NM radius around R-5401 and the Camp Grafton Range to mitigate 
impacts to these civil operations. This airspace action provides a 
reasonable balance between military training requirements and 
accommodation of non-participant flight training.
    Three commenters stated that the vast size of the restricted area 
complex is not necessary. The restricted areas being established by 
this action provide the minimum vertical and lateral tactical 
maneuvering airspace required for UAS operators to accomplish target 
acquisition prior to attack, and then contain the non-eye safe laser 
during firing. The restricted area complex was configured to confine 
two UAS operating on independent mission profiles at the same time, 
while minimizing airspace impacts to non-participating aircraft. As the 
UAS training flight transitions from one phase of the mission profiles 
to another, unused segments will be deactivated and returned to the NAS 
consistent with the FAA's Joint Use Airspace policy. The subdivided and 
stratified configuration of the restricted area complex enables the 
USAF to only activate the restricted areas needed for their training 
sorties while leaving the rest of the complex inactive and available 
for NAS users. The FAA believes the segmentation and stratification of 
the complex will enhance civil access to those parts of the complex not 
activated for USAF training requirements. Actual procedures for 
restricted area activation and deactivation will be defined in a Letter 
of Procedure between the using and controlling agencies.
    Two commenters asked if the USAF could find a less cluttered area 
with more suitable weather for MQ-1 Predator operations. The FAA 
acknowledges that weather challenges will exist for the MQ-1 Predator 
operations at Grand Forks AFB. The decision to base Predator UAS at 
Grand Forks AFB, however, was mandated by Congress. The restricted 
areas proposed by this action were situated and proposed in the only 
location that met the USAF's operational requirements of proximity to 
launch/recovery base, low air traffic density, and availability of an 
existing air-to-ground gunnery range suitable for the hazardous non-eye 
safe laser training activities.
    One commenter contended that Alert Areas are more appropriate for 
UAS training activity. Alert Areas are designated to inform 
nonparticipating pilots of areas that contain a high volume of pilot 
training operations, or an unusual type of aeronautical activity, that 
they might not otherwise expect to encounter. However, only those 
activities that do not pose a hazard to other aircraft may be conducted 
in an Alert Area. Since employment of the non-eye safe laser carried by 
the MQ-1 Predator UAS is an activity hazardous to non-participants, an 
Alert Area is not an appropriate airspace solution.
    Two commenters stated that the Air Force is proposing restricted 
areas as a means to mitigate for lack of see-and-avoid capability for 
UAS operations. They noted, correctly, that the Air Force could use 
ground-based or airborne assets to provide see-and-avoid compliance 
instead. FAA policy dictates that restricted areas are established to 
confine activities considered hazardous to non-participating aircraft. 
As mentioned previously, the focus of this action is establishing 
restricted areas to support hazardous military training activities, not 
UAS integration into the NAS. As such, the FAA does not support 
establishing restricted areas as a solution to overcome UAS inability 
to comply with 14 CFR Part 91 see-and-avoid requirements. The FAA is 
establishing the restricted areas addressed in this action to confine 
the hazardous non-eye safe laser training activities conducted by the 
USAF.
    One commenter stated that new restricted airspace should be offset 
by reallocation of unused SUA elsewhere in the NAS. The proposed 
restricted areas fall almost entirely within the existing Devils Lake 
East MOA. When activated, the new restricted areas will be, in effect, 
replacing existing SUA. Although the regulatory and non-regulatory 
process for establishing SUA is not directly linked to the restricted 
area and MOA annual utilization reporting process, the FAA does review 
restricted area and MOA utilization annually. If candidate SUA areas 
are identified, the FAA works with the military service to 
appropriately return that airspace to the NAS.
    Seventeen commenters stated that Predator pilots can get the same 
training through simulation. The FAA cannot determine for the USAF the 
value of simulated UAS operator training over actual flying activities. 
The USAF is heavily investing in Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) 
training options. As the commenters infer, the migration to a virtual 
training environment would be expected to reduce the demand for 
activating R-5402 and R-5403A-F. However, actual employment of the non-
eye safe laser will still be required for both training proficiency and 
equipment validation. This action balances the training airspace 
requirements identified by the USAF as it matures its UAS capabilities 
with the airspace access requirements of other NAS users.
    Twenty commenters addressed the increased collision hazard due to 
air traffic compression at lower altitudes and around the periphery of 
the proposed complex. The FAA recognizes that compression could occur 
when the restricted areas are active; however, the actual impact will 
be minimal. The FAA produced traffic counts for the 5 busiest summer 
days and 5 busiest winter days of 2011 during the proposed times of 
designation (0700-2200L) from 8,000 feet MSL to 14,000 feet MSL. Totals 
for all IFR and known VFR aircraft ranged between 4 and 22 aircraft 
over the 17-hour span. Volumes such as this are easily managed by 
standard ATC procedures. To enhance non-radar service in the far 
western part of the proposed complex, the FAA is considering a separate 
rulemaking action to modify V-170 so that it will remain clear of R-
5402 to the west. On average, four aircraft file V-170 over a 24-hour 
day. Lastly, the FAA is nearing completion of a project to add three 
terminal radar feeds, from Bismarck, Fargo, and Minot AFB, covering the 
restricted area airspace area into Minneapolis ARTCC. These feeds will 
improve low altitude radar surveillance and enhance flight safety 
around the proposed restricted areas.
    One commenter argued that the proposed airspace should be limited 
to daylight hours only. While daytime flying is usually safer in a 
visual see-and-avoid environment; when it comes to the military 
training for combat operations, darkness provides a significant 
tactical advantage and UAS must be capable of operating both day and 
night. While the USAF has a valid and recurring requirement to train 
during hours of darkness, the USAF was able to accept a 2-hour 
reduction in the published times of designation core hours from ``0700-
2200 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance,'' to ``0700-2000 daily, by 
NOTAM 6 hours in advance.''

[[Page 36910]]

    Another commenter sought details on the UAS lost link plan. 
Although the lost link plan is not within the scope of this action, the 
FAA does require detailed procedures for UAS lost link situations for 
all UAS operations. These procedures will be similar to those in place 
today for UAS operations across the NAS. The servicing ATC facility and 
UAS operators closely coordinate lost link procedures and will 
incorporate them into the implementing Letters of Procedure (LOP) for 
the restricted areas established in this rule.
    Two commenters commented that the proposed restricted area complex 
stratification and segmentation was confusing and would lead to SUA 
airspace incursions. The FAA promotes stratifications and segmentation 
of large SUA complexes to maximize the safety and efficiency of the NAS 
and to enable more joint use opportunities to access the same airspace 
by non-participating aircraft. Sub-dividing the complex permits 
activation of a small percentage of the overall complex at any one time 
while still providing for a diverse set of training profiles during UAS 
sorties, which is especially well-suited for long duration UAS training 
missions. Additionally, enhanced joint use access eases compression of 
air traffic in the local area; thus, increasing flight safety.
    Nineteen commenters noted that UAS will not be able to see-and-
avoid large flocks of birds using migratory flyways, which could create 
a hazard for personnel on the ground. Both Grand Forks AFB and the 
University of North Dakota flight school, located at the Grand Forks 
International Airport, have conducted extensive research into bird 
strike potential and prevention. Their research found that more than 90 
percent of bird strikes occur below 3,500 feet AGL and that there are 
predictable windows for migratory bird activity, which are adjusted 
year-to-year based on historical and forecast weather patterns. Also, 
bird strikes are nearly twice as likely to occur at night compared to 
the day. The USAF has long standing bird strike avoidance procedures 
specifically customized for Grand Forks AFB, which will be optimized 
for UAS operations. Other mitigations include having the bases of the 
restricted airspace well above most bird activity, conducting most 
training during daylight hours, and adjusting UAS operations during 
seasonal migratory activity. These mitigations conform to both civil 
and military standard bird strike avoidance measures that are in place 
across the NAS.
    Eighteen commenters contended that persons and property under the 
proposed airspace would not be protected from the non-eye safe laser 
training. The USAF conducted a laser safety study in 2009 for the Camp 
Grafton Air-to-Ground Range. This range, where the laser targets will 
be placed, lies within the existing R-5401. The study examined laser 
and aircraft characteristics, topography, target composition, and 
employment parameters, and determined that the proposed airspace would 
adequately protect persons and property outside the footprint of R-
5401. Personnel working at the range will use proper protective gear 
should they need to access the target areas during laser employment 
periods. The FAA has reviewed and accepts the USAF's laser safety 
study. The restricted areas established by this action are designed to 
allow laser employment without hazard to persons and property in the 
vicinity of R-5401.
    Two commenters stated that it is dangerous to mix UAS with visual 
flight rules (VFR) air traffic. UAS are permitted to fly outside 
restricted area airspace in the NAS today and in the vicinity of VFR 
aircraft, under FAA approved Certificate of Waiver or Authorization 
(COA). Specific to this action, UAS operations will be occurring inside 
restricted area airspace that is established to confine the hazardous 
non-eye safe laser training activities; thus, segregated from 
nonparticipating aircraft.
    One commenter said that VFR pilot violations will increase and 
those less informed will pose a safety hazard. The FAA interpreted the 
commenters use ``violations'' to mean SUA airspace incursions. VFR 
pilots must conduct thorough pre-flight planning and are encouraged to 
seek airborne updates from ATC on the status of SUA. The FAA finds that 
the restricted areas established by this action pose no more risk of 
incursion or safety hazard than other restricted areas that exist in 
the NAS.
    Two commenters observed that the NPRM failed to identify how UAS 
would transit from Grand Forks AFB to the proposed restricted areas. 
The FAA considers UAS transit and climb activities to be non-hazardous; 
therefore, establishing new restricted areas for transit and climb 
purposes is inappropriate. While UAS transit and climb activities are 
non-hazardous, they are presently atypical. Therefore, specifics on 
transit and climb ground tracks, corridor altitudes and widths, and 
activation procedures will be accomplished procedurally and consistent 
with existing COA mitigation alternatives available today. The 
establishment of restricted areas airspace is focused on the hazardous 
non-eye safe laser training activities.
    Twenty four commenters noted that the proposed restricted areas 
would block V-170 & V-55 and impact V-169 & V-561. The FAA acknowledges 
that the proposed restricted area complex will have a minimal impact on 
three of the four Victor airways mentioned, depending on the restricted 
areas activated. The airway analysis began with V-170, which runs 
between Devils Lake, ND, and Jamestown, ND, with a Minimum En route 
Altitude (MEA) of 3,500 feet MSL along the effected segment of the 
airway. An average of four aircraft per day filed for V-170. R-5402, 
when active, impacts V-170 from 1200 feet AGL to 10,000 feet MSL. The 
FAA is considering a separate rulemaking action to modify V-170 by 
creating a slight ``dogleg'' to the west, which would allow unimpeded 
use of V-170 below 8,000 feet MSL regardless of the status of R-5402. 
Impacts to V-170 above 8,000 feet MSL are dependent upon which 
restricted areas are active.
    V-55 runs between Grand Forks, ND, and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA of 
8,000 feet MSL along the affected segment of the airway. An average of 
7 aircraft per day filed for V-55. Activation of R-5402, R-5403A, R-
5403B, or R-5403C would have no impact on V-55. The FAA raised the 
floor of R-5403D to 10,000 feet MSL and reduced the blocks for R-5403D 
and R-5403E to 2,000 feet each to allow ATC more flexibility to climb/
descend IFR traffic on V-55. The FAA is also considering establishing a 
Global Positioning Satellite MEA along the affected segment of V-55 to 
allow properly equipped non-participating aircraft to fly the V-55 
ground track, but at a lower altitude.
    V-561 runs between Grand Forks, ND, and Jamestown, ND, with an MEA 
of 4,000 feet MSL along this segment of the airway. An average of two 
aircraft per day filed for V-561. When activated, the southeast corner 
of R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F encroach upon V-561 from 10,000 feet 
MSL-11,999 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL-13,999 feet MSL, or 14,000 feet 
MSL-17,999 feet MSL, respectively.
    V-169 runs between Devils Lake, ND, and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA 
of 3,500 feet MSL along this segment. The nearest point of any 
restricted area is 5 nautical miles (NM) from the centerline of V-169. 
Since Victor airways are 4 NM wide; the restricted areas do not 
encumber the use of V-169.
    The FAA acknowledges potential impacts to users on Victor airways 
V-55, V-170, and V-651 by the restricted areas established in this 
action.

[[Page 36911]]

However, based on the 13 total average daily flights filing for V-55, 
V-170, and V-651 in the same airspace as the proposed restricted area 
complex (V-169 is not affected by the proposed airspace), the impacts 
of the restricted areas on the three affected airways is considered 
minimal. These aircraft have air traffic control procedural 
alternatives available to include vectoring, altitude change, or re-
routing as appropriate.
    Nineteen commenters found that transcontinental and local area 
flights would be forced to deviate around restricted areas, increasing 
cost and flight time. The FAA understands that when the restricted 
areas are active, non-participation aircraft will have to accomplish 
course deviations or altitude changes for avoidance, which can increase 
distances flown and costs incurred. For this action, the FAA and USAF 
worked together to define the minimum airspace volume necessary to meet 
USAF training mission requirements and maximize airspace access to 
other users of the NAS. Reducing the overall size and internally 
segmenting and stratifying the complex have reduced course deviation 
distances and altitude changes required by non-participants to avoid 
active restricted areas. Additionally, the USAF as agreed to 
temporarily release active restricted airspace back to ZMP for non-
participant transit during non-routine/contingency events (i.e. due to 
weather, icing, aircraft malfunction, etc.). Air traffic in this part 
of the NAS is relatively light and the level of impact associated with 
establishing the restricted areas in this action is considered minimal 
when balanced against valid military training requirements.
    Twenty-four comments were received stating that four hours prior 
notice is insufficient lead time for activation by NOTAM, with most 
recommending that the prior notification time be increased to six 
hours. The FAA recognizes that many aircraft today have flight 
durations long enough that flight planning before takeoff may occur 
outside of the 4-hour window. Restricted areas provide protected 
airspace for hazardous operations with no option to transit when 
active, so changes in airspace status after flight planning would have 
an impact on routing or altitude. These impacts could be reduced by 
increasing the NOTAM notification time; therefore the proposed time of 
designation for R-5402 and R-5403A-F is amended to ``0700-2000 daily, 
by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM.''
    One commenter stated that the SUA should be limited to published 
times of designation or times that can be obtained through an Automated 
Flight Service Station (AFSS) or ZMP. The times of designation for the 
restricted areas conforms to FAA policy and provides military users the 
operational flexibility to adjust for unpredictable, yet expected 
events, such as poor weather conditions or aircraft maintenance delays. 
By establishing the restricted areas with a ``By NOTAM'' provision for 
activations, the AFSS will receive scheduled activation times at least 
6 hours in advance and can provide activation information when 
requested. Additionally, ZMP can provide the most current restricted 
areas status to airborne aircraft, workload permitting, as an 
additional service to any requesting IFR or VFR aircraft.
    Nineteen commenters contended that local and transient pilots would 
avoid the restricted areas regardless of the activation status. The FAA 
understands that some pilots may opt to avoid the vicinity of this 
proposed airspace complex; however, pilots have multiple ways to obtain 
SUA schedule information during preflight planning and while airborne 
to aid their situational awareness. Daily SUA schedules will be 
available on the sua.faa.gov Web site, NOTAMs will be issued at least 6 
hours prior to activating the restricted areas, and AFSS will brief SUA 
NOTAMS upon request. Airborne updates will also be available through 
ZMP or AFSS. Lastly, the USAF will provide a toll-free phone number for 
inclusion on aeronautical charts that will enable NAS users to contact 
the scheduling agency for SUA status information; similar to what is in 
place for the Adirondack SUA complex in New York.
    Two commenters requested that the FAA chart an ATC frequency for 
updates on the restricted areas. The FAA has frequencies listed on both 
the L-14 IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart and the Twin Cities Sectional 
Aeronautical Chart already. Upon review, the VHF frequency listed on 
the IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart near where R-5402 and R-5403A-F 
restricted areas will be established was found to be different than the 
frequency listed on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart listing of SUA for 
the existing R-5401 (which R-5402 and R-5403A-F will overlay). The FAA 
is taking action to correct the discrepancy so that matching 
frequencies are charted.
    Seventeen commenters stated that the NOTAM system is generally 
inadequate to inform users of SUA status, and the number of components 
to this restricted airspace would lead to intricate and confusing 
NOTAMs. The restricted area complex is comprised of 7 individual areas 
and structured to minimize complexity and maximize nonparticipant 
access when not required for military use during certain phases of a 
training mission. The overall complex configuration, with seven sub 
areas, is a reasonable balance between efficiency, complexity, and 
military requirements. The NOTAM system is designed to disseminate many 
types of aeronautical information, including restricted area status 
when activation is ``By NOTAM'' or outside published times of 
designation. Because of the ``By NOTAM'' provision in the legal 
description times of designation, activation NOTAMs for R-5402 and R-
5403A-F will be included in verbal briefings from AFSS, upon pilot 
request.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 to expand the vertical and 
lateral limits of restricted area airspace over the Camp Grafton Range 
to contain hazardous non-eye safe laser training operations being 
conducted by the emerging UAS mission at Grand Forks Air Force Base 
(AFB); thus, transforming the range into a viable non-eye safe laser 
training location. Camp Grafton Range is currently surrounded by R-
5401; however, the lateral boundaries and altitude are insufficient to 
contain the laser training mission profiles and tactics flown in combat 
operations today. This action supplements R-5401 by establishing 
additional restricted areas, R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-
5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F, to provide the vertical and lateral 
tactical maneuver airspace needed for UAS target acquisition prior to 
attack, and to contain the non-eye safe laser during laser target 
designation training operations from medium to high altitudes.
    The restricted area R-5402 is defined by a 7 nautical mile (NM) 
radius around the center of R-5401, with the northern boundary adjusted 
to lie along the 47[deg]45'00'' N latitude. The restricted area 
altitude is upward from 500 feet above ground level to, but not 
including 10,000 feet MSL. This new restricted area provides a pathway 
for the non-eye safe laser beam to transit from R-5403A, R-5403B, and 
R-5403C (described below) through the existing R-5401 and onto Camp 
Grafton Range.
    The restricted areas R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C share the same 
lateral boundaries, overlying R-5402 and layered in ascending order. 
The northern boundary of these R-5403 areas, as described in the 
regulatory text, share the same northern boundary as R-5402, the 
47[deg]45'00'' N latitude. The

[[Page 36912]]

western boundary lies approximately 14 NM west of R-5402 along the 
99[deg]15'00'' W longitude and the eastern boundary lies approximately 
7 NM east of R-5402 along the 98[deg]15'00'' W longitude. Finally, the 
southern boundary is established to remain north of the protected 
airspace for V-55. The restricted area altitudes, in ascending order, 
are defined upward from 8,000 feet MSL to, but not including 10,000 
feet MSL for R-5403A; upward from 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including 
14,000 feet MSL for R-5403B; and upward from 14,000 feet MSL to, but 
not including Flight Level (FL) 180 for R-5403C. The additional lateral 
and vertical dimensions provided by these restricted areas, in 
conjunction with R-5401, R-5402, R-5403D, R-5403E, R-5403F, establish 
the maneuvering airspace needed for UAS aircraft to practice the 
tactical maneuvering and standoff target acquisition training 
requirements necessary for the combat tactics and mission profiles 
flown today and to contain the hazardous non-eye safe laser, when 
employed, completely within restricted airspace.
    The areas R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F also share the same lateral 
boundaries, adjacent to and southeast of R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C, 
and are also layered in ascending order. The northern boundary of these 
R-5403 areas, as described in the regulatory text, shares the southern 
boundary of R-5403A, R-5403B, and R-5403C. The western boundary point 
reaches to the 99[deg]15'00'' W longitude and the eastern boundary lies 
along the 98[deg]15'00'' W longitude. Finally, the southern boundary is 
established to lie along the 47[deg]15'00'' N latitude. The restricted 
area altitudes, in ascending order, are defined upward from 10,000 feet 
MSL to, but not including 12,000 feet MSL for R-5403D; upward from 
12,000 feet MSL to, but not including 14,000 feet MSL for R-5403E; and 
upward from 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including Flight Level (FL) 180 
for R-5403F. The additional lateral and vertical dimensions provided by 
these restricted areas, in conjunction with R-5401, R-5402, R-5403A, R-
5403B, R-5403C, and the Camp Grafton Range, establish the maneuvering 
airspace, standoff target acquisition, and hazardous non-eye safe laser 
employment training completely within restricted airspace, as noted 
above.
    During the NPRM public comment period, it was realized that the 
proposal section of the NPRM preamble described the southern boundary 
for the proposed R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F to lay along the 
47[deg]30'00'' N latitude, in error. However, the regulatory text in 
the NPRM correctly described the southern boundary for these proposed 
restricted areas to lie along the 47[deg]15'00'' N latitude. This 
action confirms the southern boundary for R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F 
is along the 47[deg]15'00'' N latitude.
    Restricted areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-
5403E, and R-5403F are all designated as ``joint-use'' airspace. This 
means that, during periods when any of the restricted airspace areas 
are not needed by the using agency for its designated purposes, the 
airspace will be returned to the controlling agency for access by other 
NAS users. The Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center is the 
controlling agency for the restricted areas.
    Lastly, to prevent confusion and conflict by establishing the new 
restricted areas in an existing MOA, and having both SUA areas active 
in the same volume of airspace at the same time, the Devils Lake East 
MOA legal description is being amended in the NFDD. The Devils Lake 
East MOA amendment will exclude R-5401, R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-
5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F when the restricted areas are 
active. The intent is to exclude the restricted areas in Devils Lake 
East MOA individually as they are activated. This MOA amendment will 
prevent airspace conflict with overlapping special use airspace areas.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows:
    As presented in the discussion of comments section of this 
preamble, commenters stated that there could be the following potential 
adverse economic impacts from implementing this final rule: the rule 
will block V-170 and V-55 and limit the use of V-169 and V-561; VFR and 
local area flights will be forced to deviate around restricted areas, 
increasing cost and flight time; and the 500 feet AGL floor for R-5402 
will affect low level aerial operations such as crop dusters, wildlife 
and agricultural surveys, and emergency medical access.
    With respect to the first potential impact, as discussed in the 
preamble, the FAA acknowledges that users of Victor airways V-55, V-
170, and V-561 could be potentially affected when the restricted areas 
established in this action are active; however users of V-169 will not 
be affected at all. Users of V-170 from 1200 feet AGL to 8,000 feet MSL 
would be affected only when R-5402 is active. The FAA's has determined 
that there is an average of 4 flights per day between Devils Lake, ND, 
and Jamestown, ND. Of these flights, 90 percent are general aviation 
flights (many of them University of North Dakota training flights) and 
10 percent are military or air taxi flights. The potential effect on 
users of V-170 could be offset by several actions. One action would be 
to modify V-170 by creating a slight ``dogleg'' further west of R-5402 
to allow unimpeded use of V-170 below 8,000 feet MSL regardless of the 
status of R-5402. The FAA estimates that this ``dogleg'' would add 
about 5 miles to the length of the flight between Devils Lake and 
Jamestown. Another action would be for air traffic control to either 
vector the aircraft west of R-5402 or climb the aircraft to 8,000 feet 
MSL to avoid R-5402. V-170 above 8,000 feet MSL, V-55, and V-561 can 
still be used by the public, even during military training

[[Page 36913]]

operations, if the nonparticipant aircraft flies at a different 
altitude than the altitudes the military is using at that time. The FAA 
has determined that these adjustments will result in minimal cost to 
the affected operators.
    With respect to the second potential impact, with the exception of 
R-5402, the public will not be required to deviate around the 
restricted areas, even during military operations, as long as the 
nonparticipating aircraft flies at an altitude above or below the 
altitudes that the military is using at that time. The FAA has 
determined that these altitude adjustments will have a minimal effect 
on cost.
    With respect to the third potential impact, the USAF has agreed to 
implement scheduling coordination measures for R-5402 that will 
accommodate access by local farming, ranching, survey, and medical 
aviation interests. Further, when any of the restricted areas are not 
needed by the USAF for its intended purposes, the airspace will be 
returned to the controlling agency, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic 
Control Center, for access by other NAS users; providing considerable 
time for these interests to perform most of their aviation activities 
in a timely manner. The FAA has determined that these potential 
disruptions in public aviation will have a minimal effect on cost.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA received two comments from small business owners and a 
comment from the North Dakota Agricultural Aviation Association 
(NDAAA), representing agricultural aviation operators. The comments 
from the business owners expressed concerns about the availability of 
airspace and that they would be diverted from their normal flight 
plans, thereby increasing their costs. As previously stated in this 
preamble, however, these routes will not be closed even during military 
operations--they can be flown by nonparticipant aircraft so long as 
those aircraft are not at the altitudes being used by the military. The 
NDAAA comment that agricultural aircraft are frequently ferried at 
altitudes greater than 500 feet applies only to those aircraft in R-
5402--not in any of the other areas. As previously noted, the agreement 
with the USAF and the fact that there are no restrictions in R-5402 
when it is not being used by the military will minimize the potential 
economic impact to agricultural aviation operations in this airspace.
    While the FAA believes that one air taxi operator, a few small 
business operators, and a few agricultural aviation operators 
constitute a substantial number of small entities, based on the 
previous analysis, the FAA determined that the final rule will have a 
minimal economic impact.
    Therefore, as the acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it 
will have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on 
international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Environmental Review

    Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other applicable law, 
the USAF prepared and published The BRAC Beddown and Flight Operations 
of Remotely Piloted Aircraft at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North 
Dakota'' dated July 2010 (hereinafter the FEIS) that analyzed the 
potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
creation of Restricted Areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-5403B, R-5403C, R-
5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F. In September 2010, the USAF issued a 
Record of Decision based on the results of the FEIS. In accordance with 
applicable CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.6) and the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between FAA and Department of Defense (DOD) dated 
October 2005, the FAA was a cooperating agency on the FEIS. The FAA has 
conducted an independent review of the FEIS and found that it is an 
adequate statement. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3(a) and (c), the FAA is 
adopting the portions of the FEIS for this action that support the 
establishment of the above named restricted areas. The FAA has 
documented its partial adoption in a separate document entitled 
``Partial Adoption of Final EIS and Record of

[[Page 36914]]

Decision for the Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5402 and 5403.'' 
This final rule, which establishes restricted areas R-5402, R-5403A, R-
5403B, R-5403C, R-5403D, R-5403E, and R-5403F, will not result in 
significant environmental impacts. A copy of the FAA Partial Adoption 
of FEIS and ROD has been placed in the public docket for this 
rulemaking and is incorporated by reference.

FAA Authority

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the 
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the 
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient 
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority 
as it establishes restricted area airspace at Camp Grafton Range, near 
Devils Lake, ND, to enhance safety and accommodate essential military 
training.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.


Sec.  73.54  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.54 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-5402 Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
98[deg]47'19'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]31'25'' 
W.; then clockwise on a 7 NM arc centered on lat. 47[deg]40'31'' N., 
long. 98[deg]39'22'' W.; to the point of beginning, excluding the 
airspace within R-5401 when active, and R-5403A when active.
    Designated altitudes. 500 feet AGL to, but not including, 10,000 
feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.
* * * * *

R-5403A Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
99[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 
47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point of 
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 8,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
10,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403B Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
99[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 
47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point of 
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
14,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403C Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 
99[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]45'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 
47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point of 
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL 
180.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403D Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 
98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point 
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
12,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403E Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 
98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point 
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 12,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 
14,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

R-5403F Devils Lake, ND [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47[deg]35'39'' N., long. 
98[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 98[deg]15'00'' 
W.; to lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 99[deg]15'00'' W.; to the point 
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL 
180.
    Time of designation. 0700-2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 
advance; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th Operations Support Squadron, 
Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2012.
Paul Gallant,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-15008 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

A moment of police state zen: White House-approved Homeland Security talking points deny federal coordination of Occupy crackdown, in middle of fed email spool coordinating Occupy crackdown

A bunch of new documents have been FOIA'd out showing the various layers of Occupy crackdown. We certainly watched it all happen pretty rapidly from the ol GlobalRev catbird seat. One week, everything seemed weirdly quiet on the eviction front -- then seemingly overnight the police squads rushed in across the country and crushed the camps.

It was an interesting time... wasn't it? As the documents trickle out, we'll start to really see the whole darn thing in a new light -- certainly Occupy enticed so many bad actors & ugly authoritarian meme-systems to head into the blazing scene, intervening in so many ways.

White House (WH) approved talking points from: Partnership for Civil Justice Fund - DHS Releases More Documents on Occupy to PCJF:

Screen shot 2012-05-15 at 4.03.15 AM.png

Some hub of shenanigans known as the Homeland Security National Operations Center (or NOC) was evidently the front desk for a lot of this, but PCJF suspects, that looked pretty bad so they redirected put it through local police backchannels as well.

A classic little highlight here from five days before the White House approved talking points, thanks to PCJF:

Screen shot 2012-05-15 at 4.09.43 AM.png

Moar notes: White House & Dems Back Banks over Protests: Newly Discovered Homeland Security Files Show Feds Central to Occupy Crackdown | This Can't Be Happening &etc...

Meet the new Boss in Town: ICE spawns... HSI Homeland Security Investigations, for great justice & cocaine cowboys

Now with moar National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center ... Security unit targets ‘worst’ in world crime - John Lantigua, Palm Beach Post, Nov 26 2011

HSI is a new directorate within the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service. Formed in September, its agents are responsible for investigating large-scale international crime, such as narcotics or arms smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering and any form of terrorism. They also defend against the illegal appropriation and exporting of technology that is crucial to U.S. security.

"In other words we're looking for illegal activity that is crossing the border into the country or crossing the border out of the country," Pino says.

The HSI Special Response Team serves warrants and apprehends international criminals considered too dangerous for other law enforcement to go up against.

"A lot of these criminal organizations are very well-armed, very well-funded and some of them may come from military backgrounds in their home countries," Pino says.

While its name is new, the response team can be traced to the 1980s, before the Department of Homeland Security existed.

"It started here in Miami, in the old cocaine cowboy days," HSI Special Agent in Charge Mike Shea says. "This is the oldest and best tactical entry team in the country. High-risk entry is the core mission."

HSI consists of more than 10,000 employees, including 6,700 special agents, who are assigned to more than 200 U.S. cities and 47 countries .

A relatively monstrous SWAT style truck leads us to a whole new blob of police state developments, busy hands with little to do and a lot of hardware to do it. It's yet another plateau of mad new security bureaucracy, something in this case I was loosely aware of tectonic plates moving, but a little digging revealed quite a nasty new nucleus. Let's plow in and see what was beta-tested through the willingness of politicians to throw money at repressing immigrants. The results begin with big, black scary trucks. And the biggest intelligence group inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and more. Surprise!

Via CopBlock.org's Facebook page:

Homeland Security SRT riot truck

What in the hell is the Special Response Team, why do they have eight of these things? etc. What turns up is an entirely new nasty agency gestating with Immigration & Customs Enforcement, from the burbling mass of confused federal police... a new team emerges. With exciting competitions and lurid ways of guarding the Super Bowl from Terrorist Attack - a National Special Security Event. The wikipedia page outlines the bizarre weave of this particular bureaucratic nucleus. And the List of special response units on the ol Wiki shows a spreading motif -- but this Homeland Security super-swat is perhaps the swattiest of all.

HSI SRT Training to jump off shiny new helicopters to save the Super Bowl in Miami - yayyyy!!
(this is why your schools/bridges are crumbling, America, the purposeless authoritarian spectacle at its finest ;)

This recently reorganized, months-old ICE Homeland Security Investigations (formerly known as ICE Office of Investigations) should really be on the radar of anyone because this year they are apparently 'filling in the gaps for the Secret Service' at NSSEs like G20, NATO summits and the Republican and Democratic national conventions. (unfortunately the Secret Service is now a part of DHS, not Treasury.) The Federal Protective Service, which likes to take photos around the Twin Cities (see my 2010 Fort Snelling Undercover Fail video, classic times) is now part of some weird directorate but briefly passed through ICE after being removed from the General Services Administration.

The HSI Special Response Teams are seemingly the top layer of a lot of things, from the war on terror / war on drugs motif, to the Super Bowl, to whatever the hell they are planning to do to immigrants on the I-5 near LA, which was where this pic was taken according to Copblock. ICE has a large number of staff on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces that do statistic-generating police state busywork around the country, and interestingly this HSI group is now officially becoming publicly distinguished from the rest of ICE -- and the theory of course is HSI would be spun out of ICE to become a freestanding 'directorate', a more modern and insane paramilitary FBI or whatever.

I wonder if the Secure Communities biometric collection program which was forced upon all counties in Minnesota, regardless of state & local wishes, would feed citizens' data into HSI.... just like the monstrous truck above, now moving more into the "non immigrant" category of freeform federal police activity. Perhaps they shall do some serious black ops against occupier groups angling to get to the conventions? Nevar!

Wikipedia:

The Special Agents of HSI use their broad legal authority to investigate and combat a range of issues that threaten the national security of the United Statessuch as strategic crimes, human rights violations, human smuggling, art theft,human trafficking, drug smuggling, arms trafficking and other types of smuggling(including weapons of mass destruction), immigration crimes, gang investigations; financial crimes including money laundering, bulk cash smuggling, financial fraud, and trade based money laundering; terrorism, computer crimes including the international trafficking of child pornography over the Internet, intellectual property rights crimes (trafficking of counterfeit trademark protected merchandise), cultural property crimes (theft and smuggling of antiquities and art), and import/export enforcement issues. HSI special agents conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation.[8] HSI special agents also provide security details for VIPs, witness protection, and support the U.S. Secret Service's mission during overtaxed times such as special-security events and protecting candidates running for U.S. president.

HSI was formerly known as the ICE Office of Investigations (OI). HSI Special Agents have legal authority to enforce the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8), U.S. Customs Laws (Title 19), along with Titles 5, 6, 12, 18 (Federal Criminal Code and Rules), 21 (drugs), 22, 26, 28, 31 (exclusive jurisdiction over Money and Finance investigations), 46, 49, and 50 (War and National Defense) statutes; giving them the broadest federal law enforcement jurisdiction of any agency. HSI has more than 8,500 Special Agents, making it the second largest federal law enforcement and criminal investigative agency within the United States government next to the FBI.

The change of names from ICE OI to HSI was announced in June 2010. Part of the reasoning behind the name change was to better describe the general activities of the agency, and to avoid the uninformed stigma that this agency only investigates immigration-related issues (ex. OI/HSI special agents duties were often mistaken by the public, other LE agencies and the media to mirror ERO agents/officers). HSI does have a public relations problem. Its the second largest investigatory agency, but the general public has never heard of it. ICE held it close to the belt and until recently, didn't publicly make the distinction as TSA does with Federal Air Marshals and CBP does with Border Patrol. In 2012, ICE and HSI have mandated a public distinction be made between both organizations. Most often news reports bury HSI's efforts as "immigrations agents" or as ICE efforts, and frequently Department of Justice and US Attorney's Office press releases of HSI-led investigations get spun up to sound like DOJ or FBI investigations that received assistance from local partners and ICE.

The name change to HSI better reflects that it is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's primary investigative body, and as a result, its thought that someday it will be pulled out from under the ICE umbrella and stand independent under the DHS. An obscure fact is the original planned name before settling on ICE was the Bureau of Investigations and Criminal Enforcement, but the brothers at the FBI didn't approve and made their complaints heard.

Intelligence

Intelligence is a subcomponent of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). The Office of Intelligence uses its Intelligence Research Specialists for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of strategic and tactical intelligence data for use by the operational elements of ICE and DHS. Consequently, the Office of Intelligence works closely with the Central Intelligence Agency, IRS the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

International Affairs

IA is a subcomponent of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). The Office of International Affairs, with agents in over 60 locations around the world, represents DHS’ broadest footprint beyond US borders. ICE Attaché offices work with foreign counterparts to identify and combat transnational criminal organizations before they threaten the United States. IA also facilitates domestic HSI investigations.

Oh good, the CIA and FBI together at last... (and let's not forget the ICE/DHS network of detention facilities: Detention Facilities official front page- what is the HSI role for something like that applied to - somehow - non-immigrants?)

Official Site: http://www.ice.gov/about/offices/homeland-security-investigations/

The ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) directorate is a critical asset in the ICE mission, responsible for investigating a wide range of domestic and international activities arising from the illegal movement of people and goods into, within and out of the United States.

HSI investigates immigration crime, human rights violations and human smuggling, smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband, financial crimes, cybercrime and export enforcement issues. ICE special agents conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation.

In addition to ICE criminal investigations, HSI oversees the agency's international affairs operations and intelligence functions. HSI consists of more than 10,000 employees, consisting of 6,700 special agents, who are assigned to more than 200 cities throughout the U.S. and 47 countries around the world.

Report suspicious activity. Complete our tip form.....

HSI conducts criminal investigations against terrorist and other criminal organizations who threaten national security. HSI combats worldwide criminal enterprises who seek to exploit America's legitimate trade, travel and financial systems and enforces America's customs and immigration laws at and beyond our nation's borders.

HSI comprises six key divisions:

-Domestic Operations

-Intelligence

-International Affairs

-Investigative Programs

-Mission Support

-National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Coordination Center

The official page for the HSI Special Agent in Charge Field Offices of which there are 26:

Homeland Security Investigations has 26 Special Agent in Charge (SAC) principal field offices throughout the United States. The SAC offices are responsible for the administration and management of all investigative and enforcement activities within the geographic boundaries of the office. The SACs develop, coordinate, and implement enforcement strategies to ensure conformance with national policies and procedures and to support national intelligence programs. SACs coordinate law enforcement activities with the highest level of Federal, state, and local governments, as well as intelligence organizations and international law enforcement entities. In addition, SACs supervise all administrative responsibilities assigned to the office and ensure a responsive Internal Controls Program is developed.

To efficiently manage their designated geographic regions, SAC offices maintain various subordinate field offices throughout their areas of responsibility, which support the enforcement mission. These subordinate field offices, Deputy Special Agents in Charge (DSAC), Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASAC), Resident Agents in Charge (RAC) and Resident Agents (RA), are responsible for managing enforcement activities within the geographic boundaries of the office.

SAC Minneapolis/St. Paul

2901 Metro Drive, Suite 100

Bloomington, MN 55425

Main (952) 853-2940

Fax (612) 313-9045

If you search for 2901 Metro Drive Suite 100 that is the same office for other immigration, ICE & Homeland Security sub-offices.

These guys also have the completely insane National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, a hearty reminder that the kafkaesque nature of what they call "intellectual property" combined with bureaucratic bloatware budget and an aggressively fascist private industry-friendly design, can truly combine to make one of the most awful, yet admittedly bold, authoritarian government logos of all time. Our Partner Agencies — National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center

intel-property-rights-center.png

It's almost enough to make you believe that swat teams could control all the memes they want, and even maybe the copy and paste commands too!

These are like a new branch of goons yet to be accounted for: HSI-Intel.

The ICE Homeland Security Investigations Intelligence Office (HSI-Intel) is a robust intelligence force that supports the enforcement needs of ICE’s executive leadership and operational field units.

Cutting edge technology, complex intelligence gathering tools, multifaceted investigative techniques and a high level of professionalism have enabled HSI-Intel to set the standard for federal law enforcement/intelligence agencies.

HSI-Intel also serves as home to the National Incident Response Unit (NIRU). This unit ensures that ICE is prepared to respond to national emergencies or critical events, including natural disasters, disease pandemics and terrorist attacks. NIRU plans for ICE’s continuity of operations before, during and after catastrophic incidents. During these incidents, NIRU serves as the agency’s central communications “nerve center,” coordinating the sharing of information between ICE components and other federal, state and local agencies. .....

HSI-Intel collects, analyzes and shares strategic and tactical data for use by DHS and ICE leadership and operational units. It also supports federal, state, local, tribal and international law enforcement partners.

HSI-Intel’s analysis and targeting information plays a vital role in supporting investigations related to illegal immigration, terrorism, weapons proliferation, war crimes, financial crimes, trade fraud, drug smuggling, human smuggling and trafficking, child sex tourism and other criminal activities.

I am sure they will figure out how all that drug money gets through the Federal Reserve Bank computer systems one of these days.

Organizationally parallel to ICE and the gestating HSI within it is the National Protection and Programs Directorate - Wikipedia. Has the Federal Protective Service now. A hodgepodge. Not the Center of the Action like HSI!

Oh true story... the KGB is now... wait for it... Federal Protective Service (Russia) - Wikipedia. Федеральная служба охраны, ФСО,

As far as I can tell, the following picture is not some satirical fan-boy art piece come to life. And those fonts.... christ! It looks like you can clearly see the 'investigations' part on there.

photo.jpeg

What about the Office of Investigations Special Response Team? Looks like we've found #8 and #10 so far. Both manilla and black color schemas.

Alright lets move this along & get these links out there.I found #9 for the Los Angeles set in Flickr user DFP2746 (plz forgive remixing a part of the images, you intellectual property fusion center types) Source: Homeland Security MRAP / DHS/ICE Special Response Team | Flickr - DFP2746

ice-investigation-srt-9.png

dhs-ice-srt.png

This is getting to be like Pokemon... my SRT trucks. Let me show you them...

First get the swag on eBay: specialresponseteam.JPG HOMELAND SECURITY ICE SRT SPECIAL RESPONSE PATCH | eBay

Press release from 2005 Katrina madness is nice: Department of Homeland Security Special Response Team Deploys to New Orleans Equipped with Zensah Tactical Gear

A– ICE Special Response Team (S.R.T.), an elite tactical unit attached to the Department of Homeland Security, deployed to New Orleans equipped with Zensah (http://www.zensah.com/tactical.html) tactical gear. By wearing Zensah™ moisture wicking tactical clothing, ICE special response team members receive a first line of defense against hazardous conditions found in the Gulf Coast areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

ICE special response team members are in the affected areas to save lives, to protect lives, and to provide security to the recovery effort. ICE’s primary objectives are to support authorities in securing New Orleans and other affected communities and to provide security to federal rescue and recovery efforts.

....The ICE Special Response Team is an elite tactical team for the office of investigations under the Department of Homeland Security in Miami, Florida. Duties and responsibilities include search and arrests warrants, maritime interdiction, customs and immigration enforcement. For more information pleas visit http://www.ice.gov

Similar: Over 700 ICE Law Enforcement Personnel Were Sent to the Gulf Coast

MOAR GUNS: Tactical-Life.com » THE U.S. ICE MEN: The ICE Special Responders cometh bringing high-speed efficiency and low-drag force as required! "ICE also maintains five additional certified SRT units that are managed by ICE Detention and Operations." ... not sure if they mean 5 or 6 SRTs total. "the U.S. Customs Service evolved into a very progressive and highly successful interdiction and investigative agency. Due to the number of high-risk enforcement actions being executed on a regular basis, the U.S. Customs Service decided to establish a tactical unit called the WETT (Warrant Entry Tactical Team). In time, the U.S. Customs Service changed the name of its tactical team to the Special Response Team."

They're Hiring. Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Special Response Team) - Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection Job Posting

Buy training: Special Response Team Training 1: Overview & Objectives | Homeland Security Network USA newest backbone information source for First Responders

Gunfire a regular occurrence for ICE employees | California Watch. This has the following govt-produced pic, look how big that damn truck is. We can't see the apparent city-like (SAC?) insignia on the side or which number it has. It was at this Fort Benning GA training they blather about.

Another benefit of filling up society with needless paramilitary organizations is random accidental gunfire. Nice. "Roughly 80 ICE-involved shootings were unintentional and often involved agents dropping, cleaning or reaching for their guns, records show. The guns, in many cases, discharged in offices, government vehicles or during target practice. "

Special response teams prep for high risk situations at Ft. Benning - Nov 2011 press release ICE.gov

ice-special-training-ft-benning.png

City of Buffalo NY budget mentions a Major Award for it.

The confusing story of Homeland Security whistleblower Julia Davis ties into this I think. ie. see: Medal of Honor Held By The DHS PAGE 2

[ OKC Tangent. One other note -- In the Oklahoma City case I think Terry Nichols tried to tip off these Homeland Security types to a stash of explosives he'd obtained from FBI-friendly weapons dealer and Contra player Roger Moore. I don't have that info on hand here but it's around (notes on that ). It failed because some mafia guy snitched to the FBI -- the FBI has a pretty careful info cage around Nichols because of the informant-saturated nature of OKC he likes to talk about. This went down in like 2005. (Source of FBI Delay on Terry Nichols Explosives etc) So the idea is if the DOJ/FBI had a specific scheme such as OKC you could get around them through HSI. There's more to all of this, don't have the notes here, but there have been developments in recent weeks, search 'Jesse Trentadue'.. ]

201204120404.jpg

Check the ICE photos for some mad stuff. including saving the world from counterfeit NBA swag.

Conclusions? In any case it's good to know who the 'filler goons' are for NSSE campaigns of state-sponsored violence and insanity, of which 3.5 are scheduled for Chicago/Camp David, RNC & DNC this year, (along with the all important national sporting events), and ICE's new spawn HSI and the HSI SRT giant trucks will soon be a fixture at high profile gigs. There were weird Border Patrol Swat types at the 2009 G20 - See TC Indymedia Exclusive: Secret 'Trigger' & blueprint for emergency domestic military crackdown plan revealed - BORTAC is that team. And who knows what they might do with good ol' FEMA.

What to expect: HSI's avid effort to become a domestic Swiss army knife of police activity between IRS, CIA and FBI; another layer on the Joint Terrorism Task Force cake and a free-wheeling institution in its own right, combined with a few new flashy PR initiatives (a high profile bust of a little fish or 2 perhaps, etc) in order to carry out the planned 'branding' of HSI.

Perhaps we can just shut it down and use the borrowed debt 'money' we save to be less permanently indebted to the banker police state... borrowed money to build out echelons of mass suppression is always a grim spectacle. Imagine what we could have done with the wasted resources instead. Now we know which new goonsquad will get the biometrics data from Secure Communities.

And of course, who better to 'manage' the war on drugs than the organizational descendant of the 'cocaine cowboys' and the 1980s task forces which helped pass through planeload after planeload of cocaine? That era's keywords, Barry Seal, aviation fronts like Vortex, Southern Air Transport, Evergreen, Polar Air Cross and Air America (some still thriving), operations like AMADEUS, PEGASUS and WATCHTOWER, the quasi-privatized intelligence operations authorized under proclamations like Executive Order 12333 to facilitate the drugs-for-weapons smuggling... those were a few critical points of that era.

What awaits us next? How will HSI deal with the vast scale of financial corruption? What will they do? Who are they going to point the weapons at, and where are the trucks going? Chicago, Charlotte & Tampa... but first, LA, of course. For the immigrants.

Syndicate content