Most of the work for Top Secret America involved original research and reporting; that is, the compilation of data from primary documents and interviews with hundreds of confidential sources. The Top Secret America website (found at http://www.topsecretamerica.com and http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/) provides thousands of additional pages profiling federal government agencies, state and local government organizations, and corporate entities.
here: President Bush, in an address on 16 September 2001, used the phrase “war on terrorism,” a war that he said was “going to take a while.” See White House, “Remarks by the President Upon Arrival, the South Lawn,” 16 September 2001.
National Security Presidential Directive No. 46/Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 15, “U.S. Strategy and Policy in the War on Terror,” 6 March 2006 (classified top secret), rescinded all earlier counterterrorism directives and defined the objectives of the war on terror. The directive also provided that the attorney general, acting through the FBI and in cooperation with other federal departments and agencies, coordinate law enforcement activities to detect, prevent, preempt, and disrupt terrorist attacks against the United States.
The military implementation of the war on terror was codified in the SOCOM (Special Operations Command) Global Campaign Plan for the WOT (also known as CONPLAN 7500). (Note: In these early documents, WOT, for War on Terror, was a more commonly used acronym; GWOT, Global War on Terror, came later.)
here: Post–9/11 supplemental budgets. On 28 September 2009, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that Congress had approved an estimated $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the war on terror and the Afghanistan and Iraq operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks. Of that total, the CRS estimated that Operation Iraqi Freedom would receive about $683 billion (72 percent) and Operation Enduring Freedom about $227 billion (24 percent). See CRS Report for Congress (Amy Belasco), The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, 28 September 2009, RL33110.
Bob Woodward first reported President Bush’s Presidential Finding on al-Qaeda in the Washington Post. The original “Memorandum of Notification” said the objective was to attack bin Laden’s organization and to kill or capture those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and their supporters. See Bob Woodward, “CIA Told to Do ‘Whatever Necessary’ to Kill Bin Laden; Agency and Military Collaborating at ‘Unprecedented’ Level; Cheney Says War Against Terror ‘May Never End,’ ” Washington Post, 21 October 2001, p. A1.
here: Windermere Group. In March 2005, Essex Corporation announced its acquisition of The Windermere Group LLC, then a privately held company headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland. Essex was then acquired by Northrop Grumman (see http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/northrop-grumman/), and the former management team from Windermere established KEYW Corporation (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/keyw-corporation-the/).
here: On September 26, 2002, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees invited Cofer Black, former head of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, to testify; see Joint Investigation into September 11th: Hearing Before the Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committees, 109th Congress, 2002; statement of Cofer Black, former chief of the Counterterrorist Center, Central Intelligence Agency.
The formal name of the center at the time of 9/11 was the DCI Counterterrorist Center, having been established in the Clinton administration as a multi-agency intelligence community center under the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). The CIA Counterterrorist Center (CTC) continues today within the CIA, but many of the interagency counterterrorist functions have been transferred to the newly created National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which reports to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
here–here: Biographies of J. Cofer Black can be found at http://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2006/09/30/cofer-black-bio/ and http://www.greatertalent.com/CoferBlack/.
here–here: Predator. The MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a medium-altitude, long-endurance, unmanned aircraft system. The crew for the Predator is one pilot and two sensor operators. They fly the aircraft from inside a ground control station via a satellite data link for beyond-line-of-sight flight. The aircraft is equipped with a color nose camera (generally used by the pilot for flight control), a day variable-aperture TV camera, a variable-aperture infrared camera (for low light or night), and other specific mission sensors that can be switched on (weight permitting). The cameras produce full-motion video (FMV).
The basic MQ-1 Predator carries the Multi-spectral Targeting System, which integrates electro-optical, infrared, laser designator, and laser illuminator into a single sensor package. The aircraft can employ two laser-guided AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The military version of the Predator was first used in Kosovo in 1999 to provide real-time images to commanders through the use of two-color TV cameras and a Spotter high-resolution forward-looking infrared (FLIR). In 2001, the Predator B was first put into use by test-firing a Hellfire missile. In November 2002, a CIA-operated Predator killed six suspected al-Qaeda members in Yemen by firing a Hellfire missile at their car as it traveled through the desert. A naturalized U.S. citizen was among those killed.
At the beginning of the Iraq war, the military was operating twenty-two Predators capable of sustaining three twenty-four-hour combat air patrols (CAPs). Three Predator-type operational orbits (known as “patrol lines”) in 2003 grew to eighteen by 2007 and thirty-one by 2008 and are slated to reach sixty by 2012. One twenty-four-hour Predator-class combat air patrol requires 174 service members and four drones.
Since 9/11, additional Predator types have been introduced, including the army’s Gray Eagle, and civil agencies, including Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, and NASA, have begun flying Predator variants.
See also Reaper, below.
here–here: high-value targets (HVTs). The Defense Department defines a high-value target simply as “a target the enemy commander requires for the successful completion of the mission. The loss of high-value targets would be expected to seriously degrade important enemy functions throughout the friendly commander’s area of interest.” See Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, JP 1-02, 8 November 2010; available at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/.
U.S. Army Combat Studies Institute, On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign: The United States Army in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, May 2003–January 2005, by Dr. Donald P. Wright and Colonel Timothy R. Reese (2008), chapter 5, “Intelligence and High-Value Target Operations,” provides the most concise description of Iraq-based HVT operations to capture Saddam Hussein and his sons.
here–here: enhanced interrogation techniques. The first press report of the systematic abuse of detainees was by Dana Priest and Barton Gellman, “U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations; ‘Stress and Duress’ Techniques Used on Terrorism Suspects Held in Secret Overseas Facilities,” Washington Post, 26 December 2002; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901356.html.
See also later: Priest, “CIA Puts Harsh Tactics on Hold; Memo on Methods of Interrogation Had Wide Review,” Washington Post, 27 June 2004, p. A1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8534-2004Jun26.html.
here–here: Greystone operations. Greystone was first described by Dana Priest using its unclassified nickname, GST, in the Washington Post on 30 December 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901585.html.
here: Controlled Access Programs (CAPs). The Controlled Access Program is explained by the Special Security Center of the Director of National Intelligence at http://www.dni.gov/ssc/capco.htm. The original directive creating the program—Director of Central Intelligence directive 29, subject: Controlled Access Program Oversight Committee (effective 2 June 1995)—is online at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid3-29.html.
here–here: WMDs in Iraq and the Curveball episode. In addition to Bob Drogin’s book Curveball (see Notes on the Database and Written Source Material for complete publication information), in February 2011 the Guardian newspaper published the confession of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who was Curveball in flesh and blood. See Helen Pidd and Martin Chulov, “Curveball’s Lies—and the Consequences; Details of What the Iraqi Defector Said About WMD, and How It Was Used by Germany and the United States,” Guardian (UK), 15 February 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveballs-lies-consequences-iraqi-defector?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487; and Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd in Karlsruhe, “Defector Admits to WMD Lies That Triggered Iraq War,” Guardian (UK), 15 February 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war.
here–here: Special Access Programs (SAPs). Within the government, there are three types of formal SAPs: acknowledged, unacknowledged, and waived. An acknowledged SAP may be openly recognized or known (e.g., the F-22 fighter); however, specific details of technology within the SAP will be classified. A waived SAP is authorized by the secretary of defense to be excluded from regular reporting requirements to Congress. Within a SAP of any kind, subcompartments may also be established to limit knowledge of extremely sensitive aspects of a program.
A SAP is expensive to maintain and is supposed to be justified at numerous levels, from command to service or agency and then approved by at least the deputy secretary (in both the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security). With the designation of a program as a SAP also come specific reporting requirements to Congress.
Based on Director of National Intelligence and DoD regulations, all SAPs require, as a minimum:
SAPs that contract for goods and services outside of normal channels are called carve-out programs. In this case, the term refers to the Defense Security Service being carved out of its normal industrial-security roles and reviews.
If the association of a nickname or code word with a specific classified activity is compromised, or is suspected of being compromised, the program is required to establish a new nickname or code word.
Post 9/11, SAPs have not only migrated outside the acquisitions, intelligence, and Special Operations communities to departments such as Homeland Security and Commerce, but they also have been joined by a number of formalized SAP-like programs, each of which employs some of the compartmentalization and security of SAPs but avoids many of their otherwise onerous administrative, security, and reporting requirements. (Military services regulations published since 2001 dealing with SAPs formally include these other programs.) Two of the most important SAPs are “sensitive activities” and “special activities,” each of which has a specific meaning depending on the agency using it, but this is not well understood even within each agency.
According to a definition used by the navy (see below), a “sensitive activity” is any activity that may involve: “(1) The potential for public controversy or embarrassment; (2) Unusual or significant risks to… property and/or personnel; (3) Adverse military or diplomatic reactions or consequences; (4) Issues of unlawful or improper conduct; or (5) Issues regarding the… [service] and its relations with or support to other military departments or government agencies.”
“Special Activities,” as defined by Executive Order 12333, the same order that governs covert action, are “(a), activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly, and functions in support of such activities, but which are not intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media, and do not include diplomatic activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related support functions.”
The army describes these as including “sensitive support to other Federal agencies; clandestine or covert operational or intelligence activities; sensitive research, development, acquisition, or contracting activities;… and other activities excluded from normal staff review and oversight because of restrictions on access.”
For background, see:
here: Operation Mountain Storm began in Afghanistan on 13 March 2004. In the two months of Mountain Blizzard that preceded it, the coalition conducted 1,731 patrols and 143 raids and cordon-and-search operations. They killed twenty-two enemy combatants and discovered caches with 3,648 rockets, 3,202 mortar rounds, 2,944 rocket-propelled grenades, 3,000 rifle rounds, 2,232 mines, and tens of thousands of rounds of small-arms ammunition, the Department of Defense said. Mountain Storm was the next in the continuing series of operations in the south, southeast, and eastern portions of Afghanistan designed to destroy terrorist organizations and their infrastructure while continuing to focus on national stability and support. See various DoD and Central Command (CENTCOM) press releases at the time.
here–here: Jordan. William M. Arkin first reported on secret military operations taking place in Jordan: “Hiding Jordan,” WashingtonPost.com, 15 July 2002, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A6091-2002Jul15¬Found=true; the full article can be read at http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00974.html.
here: Secret prisons. Dana Priest, “CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons,” Washington Post, 2 November 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html, described the secret-prisons apparatus of the Greystone program.
here: 2009 inauguration background information:
FBI/Department of Homeland Security, Joint Threat Assessment, (U//FOUO) 56th Presidential Inauguration, 7 January 2009; DHS Inspector General, United States Secret Service After-Action Review of Inaugural Security (Redacted); OIG-10-04, October 2009.
DHS, United States Secret Service, United States Secret Service Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report (2010).
District of Columbia Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, 2009 Presidential Inauguration, 17–21 January 2009, Regional After-Action Report Summary, 31 August 2009.
Two execute orders (EXORDs) were issued for Department of Defense support to the presidential transition and specifically the inauguration.
here: Military forces on alert for the inaugural. Joint Task Force 29, a collection of National Guard units from sixteen states under the command of the 29th Infantry Division of the Virginia National Guard, mobilized into forward-support positions preparing for possible catastrophic events involving the inauguration. The forces operated under an operations order for Valiant Shepherd. To prepare for its role as a joint task force with regional responsibilities during the inauguration, the 29th Infantry Division actively trained for more than two years. See various press releases of the National Guard Bureau, the Virginia National Guard, and the Department of Defense, as well as the After-Action reports references above.
here: Secret Service. The Secret Service, as the lead agency for the National Security Special Event (NSSE) declared for the inauguration, set up the Multi-agency Coordination Center, a large operations center that could accommodate the heads of all the agencies involved. Information feeds from all of the organizations came into the center and were forwarded to the Joint Task Force National Capital Region (JTF NCR), the area’s Northern Command (NorthCom) representative and the highest-level military command.
here: F-22. The air defense plan for Washington during the Obama inauguration involved air patrols by Air Force F-22 Raptors from the 1st Fighter Wing, Langley AFB, Virginia. This was the first use of the F-22s in the United States for a potential real-world mission.
here: RC-26. The RC-26 Condor is an Air National Guard (ANG)–owned dedicated, light-manned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft that generally supports Special Operations Forces. Within the domestic mission, the RC-26 is the ANG’s primary aircraft for Incident Awareness and Assessment for all National Special Security Events (NSSEs), to support military and civilian counternarcotics missions, for homeland security, and for response to natural or man-made disasters. The aircraft fly from eleven locations inside the United States.
here: Cheyenne Mountain. For additional information on the Northern Command (NorthCom) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain complex, see http://www.norad.mil/about/cmoc.html.
here–here: The 9/11 Commission Report. The full text of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission) report is online at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm. See also Testimony of Richard A. Clarke, before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 24 March 2004.
George Tenet directly responded to the 9/11 Commission’s criticism of his “we are at war” memo in his autobiography: “The 9/11 Commission later said that I declared war but that no one showed up. They were wrong”; At the Center of the Storm, p. 119 (see Notes on the Database and Written Source Material for complete publication information).
here–here: Al-Shabaab. The Canadian news media also reported on the potential al-Shabaab threat to the 2009 inaugural. See Colin Freeze, “Bogus Plot Threatened Obama Inauguration; Short-lived Panic over Threat of Somali Terrorists from Canada Threatened to Derail Ceremony,” Globe and Mail, 5 January 2010; Allison Jones, “Officials Investigated Perceived [Canadian] Border Threat on Inauguration Day in 2009,” Canadian Press, 5 January 2010, http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ ALeqM5g1BsPpqumvpov_m2FQGlRzACzIdw; and QMI Agency, “RCMP Says It Helped in Tip about Obama Attack,” Toronto Sun, 5 January 2010.
The various potential threats to the inauguration are discussed in the following documents obtained by the authors:
Before the inauguration, the United States had launched several strikes against al-Shabaab and considered it a serious threat to U.S. and European interests overseas. In May 2008, the United States quietly ordered a Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile attack on a safe house in a remote town of central Somalia, killing the al-Shabaab leader Aden Hashi Ayro. After the attack, al-Shabaab stated it would target all U.S., Western, and U.N. personnel and interests. In October 2008, five synchronized suicide bombing attacks were launched in Somalia against local government, Ethiopia, and U.N. offices.
here–here: Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center (WRTAC). The WRTAC is the district’s citywide all-hazards intelligence fusion center. A governance board, composed of district and federal agencies, oversees its management. Formerly the Metropolitan Washington Fusion Center (MWFC), operated by the Metropolitan Police Department and established in 2006.
here–here: FBI weapons of mass destruction crisis management mission. A classified annex to National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-46/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-15, the United States Policy and Strategy in the War on Terror designates the FBI as lead federal agency for the operational response to terrorist incidents, including the use of a weapon of mass destruction in the United States.
Nimble Elder is elliptically described in the voluminous budget justification material of the various agencies enlisted in the program: the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice, and even the Environmental Protection Agency. See also Tammy P. Taylor, Ph.D., P.E., Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Role of National Science and Technology Council,” 2009 National State Liaison Officers Conference, 18 August 2009.
here: Attribution Working Group. See Tammy P. Taylor, “Role of National Science and Technology Council,” cited in the previous note.
The FY 2005 Defense Department budget also states: “In the ‘Domestic Nuclear Event Attribution’ (DNEA) Program, develop a deployable lab: install classified interagency communications system/communications terminals at critical agencies; perform the first simulated nuclear event field exercise; formally integrate program plans and improve technical/operational procedures at the national level through support to DTRA’s [Defense Threat Reduction Agency] FBI customer co-chair of the National Security Council [NSC] formed sub-Policy Coordination Committee Attribution Working Group; brief the program to the Vice President” (Exhibit R-2a, RDT&E Project Justification, Program Element 0602716BR, Project BD—Weapon Effects Technologies, February 2004).
here: Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The number of SCIFs is seen in a description of the responsibilities of the army’s headquarters for the Military District of Washington (MDW). There, it states that the MDW is responsible for supervising the operation of over 350 SCIFs in the District, Maryland, Virginia, and southern Pennsylvania. This does not include any SCIFs operated by the intelligence agencies, all of which are under the authority of the individual agencies.
here: Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS). JWICS is the intelligence community’s top secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)–cleared high-speed multimedia global communications network, delivering secure information services to national and defense intelligence components. All U.S. government TS (Top Secret)–SCI networks run off the high-capacity JWICS backbone, which is used to handle data, voice, imagery, and graphics.
here–here: Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in Washington. The first post–9/11 report of military Special Operations involvement in contingency plans for the national capital region was Eric Schmitt, “Commandos Get Duty on U.S. Soil,” New York Times, 23 January 2005, p. A1, based on the Power Geyser program described in William M. Arkin’s book Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World (Steerforth, 2005).
For more information on the Director of National Intelligence, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/dni/.
here: On 21 January 2009, shortly after assuming office, President Obama issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies titled “Subject: Transparency and Open Government” and setting forth three basic principles for agencies of the executive branch to pursue as the normal course of business: transparency, participation, and collaboration. On 8 December 2009, the Office of Management and Budget issued an Open Government Directive detailing specific time lines, goals, and requirements for each executive branch agency to meet in support of the president’s goals.
here–here: Defense Policy Analysis Office (DPAO). The document clues about DPAO were contained in:
here–here: J39. A J39 information operations staff organization (within the J3 Operations Directorate), sometimes called the Special Technical Operations Division (STOD), is assigned to every combatant command and most military intelligence organizations supporting classified operations. The J39 is responsible for all offensive information warfare programs and activities coordinated by the Joint Staff but, because of its unique handling of Special Access Programs (SAPs), high clearances, and special communications, is also called on to deal with most compartmented cyber and intelligence operations, with the exception of Special Operations.
The Special Technical Operations (STO) office or organization of military commands and units is the place for planning and executing compartmented capabilities. The Joint Staff, unified commands, and intelligence agencies all have STO organizations, most (but not all) collocated with J39. They uniquely communicate through the Planning and Decision Aid System (PDAS), also known as Island Sun.
CJCS Instruction 3120.08B, Integrated Joint Special Technical Ops (S/NF), February 2003, explains that STOs are the means by which SAP capabilities are generally integrated into theater campaigns and conventional military operations.
here: air force XOIWS. According to internal air force briefings, obtained by the authors, the Influence Operations Division is responsible for policy, guidance, and management, to include training of air force influence operations. Influence operations consist of military deception (MD), psychological operations (PSYOP), and operations security (OPSEC): “Influence operations allow the commander to convey selected information and indicators to target audiences, shape the perceptions of decision-makers, secure critical friendly information, protect against espionage, sabotage, and other intelligence gathering activities, and communicate information about Air Force activities to the global audience.”
here: Applied Research Associates. For more information on Applied Research Associates, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/applied-research-associates/.
here: L-1 Identity Solutions. For more information on L-1 Identity Solutions, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/l-1-identity-solutions/.
here: SAIC. For more information on SAIC, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/saic/.
here: Olney, Maryland. An interesting photographic study of the underground Federal Support Center in Olney, Maryland, showing pre–and post–9/11 changes can be found at Cryptome: http://cryptome.org/eyeball/fsc/fsc-eyeball.htm.
here: Global Response Staff. The CIA’s Global Response Staff, aka the Global Response Service, is not publicly discussed by the government, though information on the CIA’s own police, the Security Protective Service, for its various buildings in the Washington, DC, area can often be found on job sites advertising for CIA security positions.
here: Blackwater/Xe Services LLC. For more information on Blackwater, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/xe-services-llc/.
here: Underground Facility Analysis Center (UFAC). For more information on the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA, UFAC’s parent organization), its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/dia/.
Created in 1997, UFAC is made up of elements of the CIA, the DIA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM).
For more information on NGA, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/nga/.
here: Carahsoft Technology. For more information on Carahsoft, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/carahsoft-technology-corp/.
here: Defense Security Service (DSS). The DSS administers the Department of Defense Industrial Security Program. The official website is at http://www.dss.mil/.
here: Southern Command. For more information on Southern Command, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/southcom/.
here: Joint Use Intelligence Analysis Facility. The $62 million Joint Use Intelligence Analysis Facility provides a secure intelligence facility for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) and allows the collocation of vastly expanded ground-forces technical intelligence operations. The facility houses approximately 1,000 personnel: 800 from DIA and 200 from NGIC. More details on the new facility near Charlottesville, Virginia, can be found at http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/projects/military%20projects/Rivanna%20Station/Rivanna_JointUse.asp.
For more information on the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/nro/.
here–here: National Security Agency (NSA). For more information on the NSA, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/nsa/.
here: Fort Meade, Maryland. The official website is at http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/.
Information on the planned growth of Fort Meade and the National Security Agency can be found in:
here–here: National Business Park. The Corporate Office Properties Trust (COPT) website for the National Business Park is at http://www.copt.com/propertyModule/park_detail.asp?parkid=108. A photographic study of National Business Park can be found at Cryptome: http://cryptome.org/eyeball/nsa-nbp/nsa-nbp.htm.
here: L-3 Communications. For more information on L-3 Communications, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/l-3-communications/.
here: Northrop Grumman. For more information on Northrop Grumman, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/northrop-grumman/.
here: Cyber Command, according to the Department of Defense, plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes, and conducts activities to direct the operations and defense of specified DoD information networks. It prepares for and, when directed, would conduct full-spectrum military cyberspace operations. On 23 June 2009, the secretary of defense directed the Commander of Strategic Command to establish CYBERCOM. Its Initial Operational Capability (IOC) was achieved on 21 May 2010.
The specialized focus of the forty-five top-level government organizations of Top Secret America (e.g., counterthreat finances, cyber security, information operations) can be explored at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/network/#/overall/most-activity/.
here: Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF). The little-known FTTTF, operated by the FBI, was created pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 2 in August 2002. It is an interagency fusion center charged with using all sources of information (including data mining techniques) to discover potential domestic terrorism subjects. In addition to FBI and Justice Department participation, the CIA; the National Security Agency (NSA); the Departments of Treasury, State, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, and Health and Human Services; the Social Security Administration; and the Office of Personnel Management all have staff at the task force. The FTTTF has access to over forty sources of data containing lists of known and suspected foreign terrorists and their supporters through searches on a range of government and commercial databases.
here: Strategic Command and information operations. For more information on Strategic Command, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/stratcom/.
A change to the Unified Command Plan, signed by President Bush on 1 October 2002, assigned the global information operations mission to STRATCOM, including the Joint Task Force–Computer Network Operations (JTF–CNO) and the Joint Information Operations Center (JIOC).
here: The $9 million propaganda program, the tip of the iceberg, was first reported by Walter Pincus, “Congressional Committees Raise Concerns over Pentagon’s Strategic Communications,” Washington Post, 28 July 2009.
here–here: JIEDDO and IEDs. The Joint Improved Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) was established in 2006 as an ad-hoc, high-level defense agency focused on leading, advocating, and coordinating all military actions to defeat IEDs. Headquartered in Crystal City, Virginia, JIEDDO has a network of research-and-development efforts, intelligence centers, and operational units engaged in counter–IED work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations around the world.
here: National Maritime Intelligence Center (NMIC). For more information on naval intelligence, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/navy-intelligence/.
In January 2009, the new NMIC opened in Suitland, Maryland. It was created to serve as the national focal point for commercial maritime intelligence.
here: 902nd Military Intelligence Group. For more information, see the official website: http://www.inscom.army.mil/MSC/Default902nd.aspx?text=off&size=12pt.
here: Anwar Awlaki. Dana Priest first wrote about U.S. counterterrorism operations in Yemen and the search for Awlaki (Anwar al-Aulaqi). See “U.S. Military Teams, Intelligence Deeply Involved in Aiding Yemen on Strikes,” Washington Post, 27 January 2010, p. A1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html.
Priest also first reported on the November 2002 Predator strike in Yemen. See “CIA Killed U.S. Citizen in Yemen Missile Strike; Action’s Legality, Effectiveness Questioned,” Washington Post, 8 November 2002, p. A1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25630-2002Nov7?language=printer.
here: Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The Congressional Conference Report establishing and discussing the act can be found at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/intel_reform.html. The text of the act can be found at http://www.nctc.gov/docs/irtpa.pdf.
here: Northern Command (NorthCom). For more information on NorthCom, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/northcom/.
The official mission statement is: “The Commander of USNORTHCOM is responsible for detecting, deterring and preventing threats to the people and territory of the United States; providing military support to Federal, State and local authorities in response to natural or man-made disasters or for other missions, as directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense; and executing theater security cooperation programs with Mexico, Canada and the Bahamas.”
Three background studies of NorthCom are particularly useful:
here: Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP). For more information on HSIP, see the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Briefing, Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP) Gold 2007 and Beyond, 23 May 2007; and the NGA magazine Pathfinder, September/October 2008 issue.
here: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). For more information on FEMA, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/fema/.
here: Mobile Consolidated Command Center (MCCC). Background information on the Northern Command (NorthCom) MCCC was found in:
here–here: National Threat and Incident Database (NTIDB). The NTIDB is the Department of Homeland Security repository for intelligence analysis, the authoritative source of all U.S. government information concerning threats and incidents presenting danger to critical infrastructure and key assets.
here: GIANT. GIANT is the GPS Interference and Navigation Tool. Background information was obtained in Air Force Space Command briefing (AFSPC/XOOI, Space Integration Branch), GPS Interference and Navigation Tool (GIANT) Way Ahead, July 2009.
here: Coast Guard. For more information on Coast Guard intelligence, its activities, and its contractors, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/coast-guard/.
here: Banning armed Predator use in the United States. See Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), 29 December 2010.
As of late 2011, the DoD has 146 unmanned aerial system (UAS) units based at 63 continental United States locations. By 2015, the Joint UAS Center of Excellence (JUAS COE) estimates, the DoD will have 197 units at 105 locations, a 35 percent increase in units and a 67 percent increase in number of locations. The Air National Guard (ANG) has operated unmanned systems since 2004. In 2011, five state National Guard units operated 9 Predator or Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in combat air patrols in the Middle East. One of those units, the New York ANG’s 174th Fighter Wing at Hancock Field ANG base in Syracuse, operated the MQ-9 Reaper in support of operations in Afghanistan, sending commands through satellite networks. This wing, which formerly had an F-16 flying mission, was the first Air Guard unit to operate MQ-9s.
here: National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). Background information on the DHS–prepared NIPP (and the plan itself) can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0827.shtm.
here: Paul McHale. The memorandum, obtained by the authors, is: Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense) Paul McHale, Memorandum for Director Joint Staff, Assessment to Handle Multiple CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive) Incidents Requiring Federal Assistance to State Authorities, 11 March 2003.
McHale’s memo was supplemented by Defense Planning Scenario: Homeland Defense, 2010–2012 (U), 21 November 2003, a SECRET//NOFORN document, meaning that it cannot be shared with Canada, the only relevant country.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3125.01B (CJCSI 3125.01B), Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) for Domestic Consequence Management (CM) Operations in Response to a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive (CBRNE) Incident, 19 October 2009, directed NorthCom to “form and employ as directed an additional two C2 JTF HQ, which (along with JTF-CS) are capable of deploying, planning, and integrating DoD’s support to civil authorities for three near simultaneous CBRNE incidents. Confirm annually these three designated JTF headquarters’ ability to deploy operationally and employ CCMRF [Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive Consequence Management Response Force] elements.”
here: The Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) in Indian Head, Maryland, provides the search-and-extract capability in nuclear-contaminated areas for the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF).
here: Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), 29 December 2010, defines DSCA and the role of the Department of Defense.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) Standing DSCA Execution Order (EXORD), dated 14 August 2009, states, “Information collected on U.S. Persons by military personnel in a Title 10 USC status during [a DSCA] mission that indicates the existence of a threat to life or property or the violation of law will be turned over to civilian law enforcement official IAW [in accordance with] DoDD 5200.27, Acquisition of Information Concerning Persons and Organizations not Affiliated with DoD, and [Enclosure 2 to] DoDD 5525.5, DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials. However, before sharing foreign or counterintelligence, DoD personnel need to follow the requirements of Procedure 12 of DoD Regulation 5240.1-R on the types of permissible assistance.”
The EXORD authorizes the use of traditional intelligence asset capabilities for “non-intelligence purposes” in the conduct of DSCA missions in seven cases:
See DSCA Handbook, Tactical Level Commander and Staff Toolkit, GTA 90-01-021, Expires 30 January 2012, pp. 5–18.
here: Incident Awareness and Assessment. The Incident Awareness and Assessment quote comes from DSCA Handbook, Tactical Level Commander and Staff Toolkit, cited in the previous note. “This Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) Handbook was prepared by the Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) Command, Quick Reaction Test (QRT) team under the direction of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Director Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), Deputy Director, Air Warfare (DD, AW).”
See also:
here: Geospatial Concept of Operations. See Department of Homeland Security, Federal Interagency Geospatial Concept of Operations (GeoCONOPS), Version 2.0, July 2010, p. 95.
here: Napolitano, “the threat facing us is at its most heightened state” since the attacks a decade ago. See Testimony of Secretary Janet Napolitano before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, “Understanding the Homeland Threat Landscape—Considerations for the 112th Congress,” release date 9 February 2011.
here: “an easygoing attitude toward different cultures.” Cited in pamphlet obtained by the authors, from the Ohio–Kentucky–Indiana Regional Terrorism Early Warning Group (TEWG), “Terrorist Awareness, Recognizing Sleepers,” 2005.
here: FLIR Corporation. The official website is at http://www.flir.com/US/.
here: Tennessee. For more information on Tennessee’s homeland security and counterterrorism apparatus, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/states/tennessee/.
here: Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA). On 23 March 2010, Army General Order (DAGO) 2010-06, signed by the secretary of the army, redesignated the Biometrics Task Force (BTF) as BIMA.
here: Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR). The Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI) is presented and explained by the government at http://nsi.ncirc.gov/.
here: The $102,000 sole source contract and some of the intelligence reports were first discovered by the Philadelphia Inquirer. See Joelle Farrell and John P. Martin, “Rendell’s Office Releases Content of All Bulletins on Planned Protests,” 18 September 2010, http://articles.philly.com/2010-09-18/news/24976139_1_bulletins-rendell-homeland-security-office.
The Institute of Terrorism Research and Response website is at http://www.terrorresponse.org/.
here: Guardian database. The FBI Guardian Program, which includes the Guardian and eGuardian (G/eG) applications, is a national program designed to record and share threat-related, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). Guardian is available to all FBI locations, Joint Terrorist Task Forces (JTTFs), fusion centers, and other government agencies located in shared facilities.
here–here: National Center for Credibility Assessment. The website of the National Center is at http://www.daca.mil/.
here: Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC). U.S. Department of the Interior Action Memo to the Secretary of Defense, Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center Implementation Plan (approved by Secretary Rumsfeld 15 May 2008), established the DCHC and abolished the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), established after 9/11.
See also Department of Defense DTM 08-032, Establishment of the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center, 22 July 2008.
The cases of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) can be found online at http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/doha/industrial.
here: Digital Realty Trust. For more information on Digital Realty Trust, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/digital-realty-trust/.
here: General Dynamics. For more information on General Dynamics, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/general-dynamics/.
here: A 2008 study, published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, found that contractors made up 29 percent of the workforce in the intelligence agencies but cost the equivalent of 49 percent of their personnel budgets. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Operational Contractor Support Task Force, which started work in July 2009, concluded that contract work accounted for over 95 percent of logistic support and developmental projects in Afghanistan, employing more than 100,000 contractors, three-quarters of whom were Afghan nationals mostly hired by U.S. companies as subcontractors.
here: Reduction of contractors. The implications in the reduction of the use of contractors can be seen in the efforts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff itself. Between fiscal year 2010–2012, the Joint Staff alone in-sourced 359 contractor full-time equivalents into civilian positions—that is, converted contractors to government employees. The number of civilians increased during the same time from 244 to 693, or by 449. See FY 2012 Budget Estimates, Joint Staff, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, TJS 851.
here: SRA International. For more information on SRA, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/sra-international-inc/.
here: Berico Technologies. For more information on Berico, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/berico-technologies/.
here: Booz Allen Hamilton. For more information on Booz Allen Hamilton, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/booz-allen-hamilton/.
here: Michael Hayden. General Hayden’s official biography can be found at http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5746.
here: Anteon International. On 14 December 2005, General Dynamics Corporation announced that it would buy Fairfax, Virginia–based Anteon International Corporation for $2.1 billion in cash. The deal was the fifth for General Dynamics that year and was taken as a sign that the firm was shifting its attention to consulting on information technology and intelligence. The company became General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT): http://www.anteon.com/.
here: United Technologies. The company website is at http://www.utc.com/Home.
here: Behrman Capital. The company website is at www.behrmancap.com/.
here: BAE Systems. For more information on BAE Systems, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/bae-systems-inc/.
here: DynCorp International. For more information on DynCorp, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/dyncorp-international/.
On 12 April 2010, Cerberus Capital Management LP acquired DynCorp International Inc. for about $1 billion.
here: National Interest Security Company (NISC). For more information on NISC, an IBM company, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/national-interest-security-company/.
here: At least ninety senior officers who were in charge of various CIA branches on 9/11 subsequently joined or became otherwise affiliated with corporations doing business with the intelligence community, according to the Washington Post’s Julie Tate. The article, “CIA’s Brain Drain: Since 9/11, Some Top Officials Have Moved to Private Sector,” 13 April 2011, can be read at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/cias-brain-drain-since-911-some-top-officials-have-left-for-private-sector/2011/03/25/AF3Nw1RD_story.html.
here–here: The Chertoff Group. The company website is at http://chertoffgroup.com/cgroup/.
here: Cubic Corporation. For more information on Cubic, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/cubic-defense-applications-inc/.
here: SkillStorm Government Integrated Systems (SGIS). For more information on SGIS, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/sgis/.
On 29 June 2010, SGIS, headquartered in San Diego, was acquired by Salient Federal Solutions Inc., based in Fairfax, Virginia.
here: McAfee. For more information on McAfee, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/mcafee-secure-computing/.
here: InTTENSITY. The company website can be found at http://inttensity.com/.
On May 3, 2010, InTTENSITY announced that it had been awarded a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) contract to provide InTTENSITY software, the combined text extraction solution of Inxight and Attensity Software, for next-generation text extraction for mission elements at the DIA. InTTENSITY “combines both noun (Inxight ThingFinder) and verb (Attensity Server) extraction, providing the context for the connections between and among nouns of interest to government information analysts. This can make the critical difference in applications ranging from data triage to patterns of life analysis.”
here–here: Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA). The organization website can be found at http://www.insaonline.org/.
here: Reaper. Because Predator has become synonymous with the lethal drone mission, the revolutionary quality of the Reaper has been overlooked. It was introduced in combat in October 2007. Reaper can fly faster, higher, and longer and carry more weapons and surveillance gear than Predator and has two global capabilities.
The spindly Predator has the ability to carry 700 pounds in flight, which means that when armed with its two laser-guided Hellfire missiles, it has only enough space for 450 pounds of additional sensors, including a limited eavesdropping capability.
Reaper, by contrast, can carry 3,750 pounds in flight and has better sensors and an integrated signals intelligence (SIGINT) capability. With that additional payload, Reaper carries four Hellfire missiles and two 500-pound laser-guided bombs. Reaper also has a 900-horsepower engine, compared with the Predator’s 115-horsepower engine, giving Reaper a cruising speed of about 230 miles per hour, almost three times faster than the Predator. The Reaper fuselage is also wider—nearly the size of an A-10 fighter jet—and it carries more fuel, giving the Reaper a range of 3,682 miles compared with the Predator’s 454 miles. Reaper also flies at a 50,000-foot ceiling, twice the height of Predator’s, making it capable of quieter and stealthier operations.
here: National Clandestine Service (NCS). The NCS is the CIA executive agent for all U.S. government and military clandestine human intelligence. Its former name was the Directorate of Operations.
here: Drone use in the Obama administration. There were 167 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the U.S. military inventory in 2002; 727 by 2004; 2,962 by 2006; and 6,191 by the time Obama became president, in January 2009. Research-and-development and procurement costs were averaging some $1.63 million annually. The total funding, which stood at about $350 million in 2001, ballooned to $4.1 billion in 2011. The government is set to spend somewhere around $49 billion overall for the next ten years for unmanned aerial systems. That would include production of approximately seventy to one hundred medium- and high-altitude aircraft each year. Author interviews with air force sources.
In 2002, the number of UAV systems (a ground station supporting a number of aircraft) deployed totaled sixteen. In 2008 the number of systems flying in the Middle East exceeded 1,000.
here: Conflict Monitoring Center (CMC). The website of the CMC, which monitors drone strikes in Pakistan, can be found at http://cmcpk.wordpress.com/.
here: Lockheed Martin. For more information on Lockheed Martin, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/lockheed-martin/.
here: Collateral damage estimation. Background information on collateral damage estimation and the thresholds applied in the sensitive target approval and review process is contained in: CJCS Manual 3160.01A, Joint Methodology for Estimating Collateral Damage and Casualties for Conventional Weapons: Precision, Unguided, and Cluster, 30 December 2005; and CJCS Instruction 3125.01B, Sensitive Target Approval and Review (STAR) Process, 19 August 2009.
here: Special Operations Command (SOCOM). For more information on SOCOM, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/socom/.
Two SOCOM publications are useful: SOCOM, “History of SOCOM,” 6th ed., 2008, http://www.socom.mil/Documents/history6thedition.pdf, and “USSOCOM Fact Book 2011,” http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOMFactBook2011.pdf.
A clue about the Technical Operations Support Activity (TOSA) and its size came in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report to Congress (Defense Manpower Requirements Report Fiscal Year 2005, prepared by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness ODUSD [PI] [RQ], March 2004), which stated (p. 74): “In FY 2005/06 INSCOM [Army Intelligence and Security Command] will complete the stand-up of the TIB/TIGs [Theater Intelligence Brigades and Groups (TIB/TIGs)] and transfer the Security Coordination Detachment (502 spaces) to Army SOCOM [USASOC].”
At the time, the Security Coordination Detachment was known as the unclassified cover unit for the Special Operations intelligence unit, sometimes known as Grey Fox and previously called the Intelligence Support Activity (ISA).
In February 2006, the government issued a particularly revealing contract solicitation that mentioned details about TOSA’s activities: See Global Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Technical Operations Support Pre-Solicitation Industry Conference Solicitation Number: W9113M050018, Special Notice, USA-SNOTE-060209-007, 5 February 2006. Mysteriously, a notice was issued by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command on 20 March 2006, rescinding (and removing) the contract information: “Effective immediately the Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC) Solicitation W9113M050018, Global Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Support, is hereby cancelled. The USASMDC, Technical Operations Support Activity, Army, DoD and/or U.S. Government are not liable for any costs incurred (or to be incurred) by interested vendors and/or prospective offerors in connection with Solicitation W9113M050018 and/or its cancellation.”
here: For background information on the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the early war in Afghanistan, see:
here: General Tommy R. Franks, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command, AFA National Symposium, Orlando, Florida, 14 February 2002.
here: Stanley McChrystal. In September 2003, Lieutenant General McChrystal became commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), serving first as Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, from September 2003 to February 2006, and then as Commander, Joint Special Operations Command, and Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, from February 2006 to August 2008. On 6 February 2006, the Department of Defense announced that JSOC Commander Army Major General McChrystal had been nominated to receive a third star and to continue in his job. See Sean D. Naylor, “JSOC to Become Three-Star Command,” Navy Times, 13 February 2006.
McChrystal’s biography can be found at: http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/biography-general-stanley-mcchrystal/p19396. His 2011 Technology Entertainment Design (TED) talk can be viewed at http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal.html.
Michael Hasting’s article “The Runaway General,” in the 8–22 July 2010 edition of Rolling Stone, can be read at: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-runaway-general-20100622.
here: Title 10 and Title 50. Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Armed Forces, is that compilation of laws relating to the “armed forces,” meaning the army, navy, air force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, and the “uniformed services,” including the armed forces, the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service. Military intelligence and Special Operations, or “preparation of the battlefield,” though they may be clandestine in nature, are operations that, if discovered, could not be officially denied by the U.S. government.
here: Pakistan and Oman operations. Musharraf’s agreement to allow the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to secretly run operations into Afghanistan from Pakistani bases is in The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 331.
Oman’s permission to host AC-130 Spectre gunships and the JSOC’s rear headquarters is in General Tommy Franks, American Soldier, p. 273 (see Notes on the Database and Written Source Material for complete publication information).
here–here: “by the truckload.” See H. C. Von Sponeck, A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq (Berghahn Books, 2006), p. 118.
The citations for Michael A. Longoria can be found at http://militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=29168.
here: William H. McRaven. McRaven’s official biography is at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioid=401.
On 19 August 2003, Rear Admiral William H. McRaven was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General for Operations, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), after having served as the director for Strategy and Defense Issues for the National Security Council at the White House. On 15 March 2004, Newsweek reported on the appointment of McRaven as commander of TF 121, “a covert, miniature strike force with a command structure so secretive that McRaven’s role hasn’t even been reported until now.” See Michael Hirsh and John Barry, “The Hunt Heats Up: Man in Charge of Catching Osama Bin Laden ‘Can Drive a Knife Through Your Ribs in a Nanosecond’; Inside the Search,” Newsweek, 15 March 2004.
here: The “wedding party incident” is described in:
here–here: EXORD. On 16 February 2003, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) War on Terrorism Execute Order (EXORD), classified TS/Focal Point, was issued.
here: Focal Point. Focal Point is a sensitive Special Operations umbrella for a set of compartmented programs, which, while not a “special access program” with its strict legal approval and reporting requirements, still requires use of Alternative Compensatory Control Measures (ACCMs) to maintain “SAP [Special Access Program]-like” security. For more information, see William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World (Steerforth, 2005), chapter 1.
here: Dell Dailey. For Dailey’s official biography, see http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bios/87639.htm.
here: National Media Exploitation Center (NMEC). The nationally funded, multi-agency initiative NMEC was created to support the war on terrorism and other high-interest operations in September 2003. It is a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Center responsible for centralized management of all document and media exploitation conducted by the intelligence community and Department of Defense. Since its formation, it has transformed itself from a new thirty-person organization into the preeminent Document Exploitation (DOMEX) center with a workforce of over seven hundred employees, including personnel deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Qatar.
here–here: “Let’s stay calm.” The transcript of the official interview with Gates appears at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/2010/07/dana_priest_interviews_sec_rob.html.
On 15 February 2011, Michael Vickers, now the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, stated, “The Taliban insurgency is in the tens of thousands. Al-Qaeda would be under 50 or so, 50 to 75, and that’s on a part-time basis. Al-Qaeda is principally concentrated elsewhere, in Pakistan and then its affiliates in Yemen and elsewhere.” See SASC, Hearing to Consider the Nominations of: Honorable Michael G. Vickers to Be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Dr. Jo Ann Rooney to Be Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 15 February 2011.
On 2 March 2011, General James Mattis testified before Congress that “the senior leadership of AQ [al-Qaeda] and associated extremists groups—groups that are intent on carrying out attacks on innocent civilians worldwide—plan, prepare, and direct operations from this region, making it of critical interest to the security of the U.S. and our allies. Currently AQ in the border region is under the most intense pressure they have experienced since 2001.” See Statement of General James N. Mattis, United States Marine Corps Commander U.S. Central Command before the House Appropriations Committee—Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on the Posture of U.S. Central Command, 2 March 2011.
here: Tiversa. The company website can be found at http://www.tiversa.com/.
here: Watchlists. On 9/11, the twelve different U.S. government terrorist watchlists contained 61,489 names, including 3,100 Americans on the FBI’s watchlist.
By March 2004, when the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) was finally created, consolidating the separately maintained watchlists into one list of “individuals known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,” the 2001 number had doubled. By March 2004, according to intelligence sources, the National Security Agency (NSA) was also monitoring 19,000 people on its terrorism watchlist.
In September 2008, when the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) celebrated its fifth anniversary, the watchlist had grown more than tenfold since 9/11. The list then contained more than 725,000 records, the vast majority representing international terrorists, but about 1 percent (some 7,000) were suspected domestic terrorists. Taking into consideration aliases and name variants, the number of individuals was estimated to be about half the total.
An organization that began with ten employees to create and manage a single watchlist of suspected terrorists had grown to a staff of more than 350 people. Approximately 270 million individuals were being screened by frontline law enforcement officers and agents each month. The database was also increasing by a monthly average of over 20,000 records.
By the time Barack Obama became president, the watchlist had grown to 1.1 million names, and the number of active terrorists was estimated to be approximately 400,000 individuals. U.S. persons (including both citizens and legal permanent residents) had grown to some 3 percent of the total (some 30,000). In 2008 alone, FBI field offices and joint terrorism task forces opened 471 cases for known or suspected terrorists previously unknown to be in the United States.
The Department of Justice inspector general conducted a full audit of the ever-growing watchlist in 2009 and found that as many as 35 percent of the nominations were outdated, many people were not removed in a timely manner, and tens of thousands of names were placed on the list without suitable cause. In the last year of the Bush administration, only 27,000 names were removed from the watchlist. People were captured or killed, or the intelligence and law enforcement agencies determined that they no longer met the criteria for inclusion. To stem some of the inflation, in February 2009 the Obama administration introduced new criteria for inclusion in the future, demanding that a “reasonable suspicion” standard be applied. The watchlist thereafter stabilized at about 600,000 names, made up of about 500,000 separate identities. U.S. persons (including both citizens and legal permanent residents) make up less than 5 percent of the listings (some 25,000). In 2009, some 10,000 individuals’ names were removed from the watchlist based on the new criteria. See Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Terrorist Watchlist Nomination Practices, Audit Report 09-25, May 2009.
Reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts that, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the determination that an individual “is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of or related to terrorism and terrorist activities.” The reasonable-suspicion standard is based on the totality of the circumstances to account for the sometimes fragmentary nature of terrorist information. Due weight must be given to the reasonable inferences that a person can draw from the available facts. Mere guesses or inarticulate “hunches” are not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion. See statement of Timothy J. Healy, Director, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Statement before the House Judiciary Committee, 24 March 2010.
here: Walid Shoebat. Shoebat’s website is at http://www.shoebat.com/.
here: Center for Security Policy’s publication Shariah: The Threat to America. The publication can be found online at http://shariahthethreat.org/.
here–here: William G. Boykin. William M. Arkin first wrote about Boykin’s religious activities in the Los Angeles Times. See “Commentary: The Pentagon Unleashes a Holy Warrior; A Christian Extremist in a High Defense Post Can Only Set Back the U.S. Approach to the Muslim World,” Los Angeles Times, 16 October 2003, http://articles.latimes.com/2003/oct/16/opinion/oe-arkin16.
here: CACI. For more information on CACI, its activities, and its contracts, see the Top Secret America project page: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/caci-international-inc/.