51 Revolting at the State Dept over Assad/Syria

Posted on June 17, 2016June 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Dozens of US officials call for military action against Syria’s Assad

FNC: Dozens of U.S. officials have called on the Obama administration to order “targeted military strikes” against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, with the aim of pressuring Damascus to accept a binding cease-fire and engage in peace talks.

The Wall Street Journal reported that 51 State Department officials advising Syria policy signed the so-called “dissent channel cable”.

State Department spokesman John Kirby confirmed the cable’s existence Thursday, but said he would not comment further until officials have reviewed its contents.

The cable expresses clear frustration with America’s inability to halt a civil war that has killed perhaps a half-million people and contributed to a worldwide refugee crisis, and goes to the heart of Obama’s reluctance to enter the fray.

“It’s embarrassing for the administration to have so many rank-and-file members break on Syria,” a former State Department official told the Journal.

Obama called for regime change early on in the conflict and threatened military strikes against Syrian forces after blaming President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons in 2013. But Obama only has authorized strikes against the Islamic State (ISIS) and other U.S.-designated terror groups in Syria.

While Washington has provided military assistance to some anti-Assad rebels, it has favored diplomacy over armed intervention as a means of ushering Syria’s leader out of power. A series of partial cease-fires in recent months have only made the war slightly less deadly, and offered little hope of a peace settlement.

The U.S. does have military assets available in the region, including two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea and a number of Air Force jets based at Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey.

However, Assad has enjoyed the protection of his Russian allies in recent months, and any action against the Syrian regime would likely bring U.S. and Russian forces into direct conflict.

Moscow has deployed an advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile system to Syria, as well as dozens of air-to-air interceptors and strike fighters such as the Su-35 and Su-24.

Navy Vice-Admiral James Foggo III, commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, told Fox News Thursday that Russia also has two Kilo-class submarines in the Black Sea armed with state-of-the art Kalibr cruise missiles. One kilo boat launched one of these cruise missiles into Syria from the Mediterranean Sea this past December.

Since September, Russia has deployed dozens of jets and helicopter gunships to Syria, which are now spread out among four bases. Russia also has dispatched bombers on missions from Engels and Mozdok, in southern Russia, which have launched cruise missiles and dozens of unguided bombs in the last year.

Republican and even some Democratic lawmakers have been urging Obama to take greater military action in Syria for years, from air strikes to the establishment of a no-fly zone over rebel-held areas. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pushed some of these steps, too.

But Obama has resisted, fearful of leading America into another war in the Muslim world after finding it impossible to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan and keep forces out of Iraq. Military commanders have been similarly reticent, given the lack of a clear alternative to Assad that might unify Syria and advance U.S. national security interests.

Nevertheless, Obama has said Assad must relinquish control if there is to be peace. And Kerry, Clinton’s successor as the chief U.S. diplomat, has repeatedly said that to defeat ISIS, the U.S. must be able to assure Syria’s many other rebel groups that there will be a post-Assad future for their country.

The dissent document echoes these sentiments, calling the government’s barrel bomb attacks on civilians “the root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader region.”

“Failure to stem Assad’s flagrant abuses will only bolster the ideological appeal of groups such as (ISIS),” the document continued, “even as they endure tactical setbacks on the battlefield.” More here including graphs.

How Terrorists use Encryption

Posted on June 16, 2016June 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

How Terrorists Use Encryption

June 16, 2016

Author(s): Robert Graham

CTC: Abstract: As powerful encryption increasingly becomes embedded in electronic devices and online messaging apps, Islamist terrorists are exploiting the technology to communicate securely and store information. Legislative efforts to help law enforcement agencies wrestle with the phenomenon of “going dark” will never lead to a return to the status quo ante, however. With the code underlying end-to-end encryption now widely available, unbreakable encryption is here to stay. However, the picture is not wholly bleak. While end-to-end encryption itself often cannot be broken, intelligence agencies have been able to hack the software on the ends and take advantage of users’ mistakes.

Counterterrorism officials have grown increasingly concerned about terrorist groups using encryption in order to communicate securely. As encryption increasingly becomes a part of electronic devices and online messaging apps, a range of criminal actors including Islamist terrorists are exploiting the technology to communicate and store information, thus avoiding detection and incrimination, a phenomenon law enforcement officials refer to as “going dark.”

Despite a vociferous public debate on both sides of the Atlantic that has pitted government agencies against tech companies, civil liberties advocates, and even senior figures in the national security establishment who have argued that creation of “backdoors”[1] for law enforcement agencies to retrieve communications would do more harm than good, there remains widespread confusion about how encryption actually works.[a]

Technologists have long understood that regulatory measures stand little chance of rolling back the tide. Besides software being written in other countries (and beyond local laws), what has not been fully understood in the public debate is that the “source code” itself behind end-to-end encryption is now widely available online, which means that short of shutting down the internet, there is nothing that can be done to stop individuals, including terrorists, from creating and customizing their own encryption software.

The first part of this article provides a primer on the various forms of encryption, including end-to-end encryption, full device encryption, anonymization, and various secure communication (operational security or opsec) methods that are used on top of or instead of encryption. Part two then looks at some examples of how terrorist actors are using these methods.

Part 1: Encryption 101

End-to-End Encryption
A cell phone already uses encryption to talk to the nearest cell tower. This is because hackers could otherwise eavesdrop on radio waves to listen in on phone calls. However, after the cell tower, phone calls are not encrypted as they traverse copper wires and fiber optic cables. It is considered too hard for nefarious actors to dig up these cables and tap into them.

In a similar manner, older chat apps only encrypted messages as far as the servers, using what is known as SSL.[b] That was to defeat hackers who would be able to eavesdrop on internet traffic to the servers going over the Wi-Fi at public places. But once the messages reached the servers, they were stored in an unencrypted format because at that point they were considered “safe” from hackers. Law enforcement could still obtain the messages with a court order.

Newer chat apps, instead of encrypting the messages only as far as the server, encrypt the message all the way to the other end, to the recipient’s phone. Only the recipients, with a private key, are able to decrypt the message. Service providers can still provide the “metadata” to police (who sent messages to whom), but they no longer have access to the content of the messages.

The online messaging app Telegram was one of the earliest systems to support end-to-end encryption, and terrorists groups such as the Islamic State took advantage.[2]These days, the feature has been added to most messaging apps, such as Signal, Wickr, and even Apple’s own iMessage. Recently, Facebook’s WhatsApp[3] and Google[4] announced they will be supporting Signal’s end-to-end encryption protocol.

On personal computers, the software known as PGP,[c] first created in the mid-1990s, reigns supreme for end-to-end encryption. It converts a message (or even entire files) into encrypted text that can be copy/pasted anywhere, such as email messages, Facebook posts, or forum posts. There is no difference between “military grade encryption” and the “consumer encryption” that is seen in PGP. That means individuals can post these encrypted messages publicly and even the NSA is unable to access them. There is a misconception that intelligence agencies like the NSA are able to crack any encryption. This is not true. Most encryption that is done correctly cannot be overcome unless the user makes a mistake.

Such end-to-end encryption relies upon something called public-key cryptography. Two mathematically related keys are created, such that a message encrypted by one key can only be decrypted by the other. This allows one key to be made public so that one’s interlocutor can use it to encrypt messages that the intended recipient can decrypt through the private-key.[d] Al-Qa`ida’s Inspire magazine, for example, publishes its public-key[5] so that anyone using PGP can use it to encrypt a message that only the publishers of the magazine can read.

Full Device Encryption
If an individual loses his iPhone, for example, his data should be safe from criminals.[e] Only governments are likely to have the resources to crack the phone by finding some strange vulnerability. The FBI reportedly paid a private contractor close to $1 million to unlock the iPhone of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook.[6]

The reason an iPhone is secure from criminals is because of full device encryption, also full disk encryption. Not only is all of the data encrypted, it is done in a way that is combined or entangled[7] with the hardware. Thus, the police cannot clone the encrypted data, then crack it offline using supercomputers to “brute-force” guess all possible combinations of the passcode. Instead, they effectively have to ask the phone to decrypt itself, which it will do but slowly, defeating cracking.[f]

Android phones work in much the same manner. However, most manufacturers put less effort into securing their phones than Apple. Exceptions are companies like Blackphone, which explicitly took extra care to secure their devices.

Full disk encryption is also a feature of personal computers. Microsoft Windows comes with BitLocker, Macintosh comes with FileVault, and Linux comes with LUKS. The well-known disk encryption software TrueCrypt works with all three operating systems as does a variation of PGP called PGPdisk. Some computers come with a chip called a TPM[g] that can protect the password from cracking, but most owners do not use a TPM. This means that unless they use long/complex passwords, adversaries will be able to crack their passwords.

NATO Launches CyberSpace Mission

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

NATO to Recognize Cyberspace as New Frontier in Defense

Nasdaq: BRUSSELS—Allied defense ministers formally recognized cyberspace as a domain of warfare on Tuesday, an acknowledgment that modern battles are waged not only in air, sea and land, but also on computer networks.

The move comes the same day as the Democratic National Committee announced its computers had been hacked by the Russian government. DNC officials said the hackers made off with its opposition research related to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for President.

The effort is designed to bolster allies’ cyberdefenses, but also will begin a debate over whether NATO should eventually use cyberweapons that can shut down enemy missiles and air defenses or destroy adversaries’ computer networks.

“This is important to all possible conflicts we can foresee,” he said.

Mr. Stoltenberg declined to address the suspected cyberhack on the Democratic National Committee by the Russian government, and wouldn’t name any potential cyber adversaries, noting that NATO’s cyberdefenses weren’t aimed at any one country. U.S. and allied officials have previously said Russia remains the greatest cyberthreat to the alliance.

Developing capabilities to more quickly attribute responsibility for cyberintrusions and cyberattacks is a priority for the alliance, Mr. Stoltenberg said.

“One of the challenge when it comes to cyber is it is not easy to tell who is attacking you,” he said.

The decision by the ministers will allow the alliance to better coordinate its cyberspace efforts and defenses, Mr. Stoltenberg said.

“This is about developing our abilities and capabilities to protect NATO cyber networks but also to help and assist nations in defending their cyber networks,” he said.

For now, the alliance is focused on defending its own secure networks and helping allies build their cyberdefenses.

Tuesday’s announcement to recognize cyberspace as new sphere of conflict or battleground constitutes a bit of catch- up by the alliance. The U.S. military, for example, has expanded its cyber command, improved its training and developed weaponry and defenses to deploy in cyberspace.

The change comes as the number of cyberattacks against the alliance and member states has been increasing, a senior NATO official said.

By making cyber a warfare domain, NATO will open the door to stepped up military planning, dedicate more officers to cyber operations and better integrate electronic warfare into its military exercises.

Two years ago, at the previous summit in Wales, NATO leaders announced a cyberattack on one ally could trigger the alliance’s collective defense provisions.

Under NATO’s founding treaty, each ally primarily has responsibility for its own defense. But NATO officials acknowledge that the alliance is only as strong as its weakest link, which makes helping nations improve their cyber capabilities a priority.

As part of efforts to counter so-called hybrid warfare threats, the use of covert forces to stir unrest or make military gains, NATO has been pushing member countries to improve their cyberdefenses.

Russia has made cyber and electronic warfare a key part of its military operations. U.S. and allied officials said that Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use such techniques to interfere with the military capabilities of its opponents in Ukraine. Russia denies it is involved militarily in Ukraine.

U.S. officials have said countering Russia’s improving militarily capabilities—such as its advanced missiles and air defenses in the Kaliningrad exclave on the border of Poland and Lithuania—could require cyber capabilities.

“Russia has sophisticated cyber capabilities,” said Vaidotas Urbelis, the defense policy director for the Lithuania ministry of defense. “But, come on, NATO nations have invested a lot in cyber and we have the capacity to defend ourselves.”

On Monday, Douglas Lute, the U.S. ambassador to NATO said cyber operations could be a key part of the alliance’s defense against stepped up Russian advances in anti-access weaponry.

“A networked air defense system can be jammed. It can be disrupted by way of cyber techniques,” Mr. Lute said.

A discussion of additional NATO cyber capabilities—or offensive capabilities—is likely to wait until after the conclusion of the alliance summit in Warsaw next month.

The alliance lags well behind its most militarily advanced members, including the U.S. and Britain, in developing its cyber capabilities. In any potential conflict, the alliance would need to rely on the U.S. and its use of cyber weaponry.

“We welcome the decision to recognize cyber as a domain,” said British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, adding the U.K. has committed some $2 billion for its own cyberdefenses and capabilities.

The U.S. Army has been increasing its cyberdefense training at its training centers in the U.S. and Europe. A pilot program begun last year has aimed embedding “cyber elements” with tactical units.

“We know a variety of countries have increasing cyber capabilities that can interfere with your communications, your global position and navigating systems, your targeting systems,” said a U.S. defense official.
*****

Last year saw was a small uptick in defense spending across Europe and Canada, Stoltenberg said. “Our estimates for 2016 show a further increase across NATO’s European allies and Canada,” said he added. “These are only estimates. But they are encouraging.”

The annual real change in NATO defense spending, he said, currently stands at around 1.5 percent, which represents an increase of more than $3 billion.

Plans to Boost Defense Spending

Some 20 NATO allies plan to spend more in real terms on defense this year, Stoltenberg said.

“So, this is real progress,” he said. “After many years of going in the wrong direction, we are starting to go into the right direction.”

With more money comes increased capabilities, Stoltenberg said, noting that NATO has agreed to place four battalions in the eastern nations of the alliance.

“Based on the advice of our military planners, we will agree to deploy by rotation four robust multinational battalions in the Baltic states and in Poland,” he said. “This will send a clear signal that NATO stands ready to defend any ally. More from the Department of Defense.

Militant Islam, Obama Admin Forbidden Terms

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

A distinction needs to be made. Radical extremists are for the force multipliers, those like Anwar al Awlaki. The militants like Mohammed Emwazi are born from the radicals and they are the deadly enforcers of the Islamic doctrine and Sharia.

Don’t blame the FBI for failures, with particular regard to the worst terror attack in American by a gunman, Orlando. Blame the White House. All the Q&A sessions, congressional testimony and press briefings by FBI Director James Comey have had an underlying message, a cry for help, attention and support.

Don’t blame the intelligence community including CENTCOM and the Pentagon for battlefield or rules of engagement failures. That belongs to the entire White House national security team. The Office of National Intelligence has also been affected.

This is not political correctness at all, it is a Barak Obama edict, sensitivity to Islam across our homeland and across the globe. Obama has had a strident mission since he assumed the Oval Office to create a Muslim protective shield. This is beyond dispute.

While not in any chronological order, there are some very key decisions that were made and continue to be made by the Obama administration that affect our national security and this generational war titled the Overseas Contingency Operation.

In April of 2009, Barak Obama delivered ‘The New Beginnings’ speech. In this presentation he spelled out his full agenda in what was to become the long-term mission to elevate Muslims and their organizations at home and globally. The White House objectives have been successful and consequential.

With the new beginning announced, Obama extended his same purpose throughout government agencies, law enforcement and policies as a mandatory doctrine.

‘Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.’ Philip Haney, The Hill.

Directly after the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration did reach out to the Muslim communities to determine who was with peace and national security and who perhaps gave clues of a larger and hidden condition that could be festering that would prove clues to more domestic security challenges.

Then came the Holyland Foundation trial in 2007/2008. The material facts and conditions of the domestic threat, people, money, collaboration and global consequence all converged in a courtroom in Texas.

During the Holy Land trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified in court that CAIR was a front for HAMAS. One trial exhibit submitted by federal prosecutors – and stipulated to by the defense in the case – explained that these organizations were dedicated to a “civilizational-jihadist process” to destroy America from within and replace the Constitution with sharia (Islamic law):

The Ikhwah [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions. (p. 21)

Federal prosecutors specifically cited this internal Muslim Brotherhood planning document as the strategic goal of these U.S.-based Islamic groups – the very same group advising the Obama Administration. The federal judge in the Holy Foundation case agreed with the case presented by the federal prosecutors had made regarding these organizations, stating in one ruling that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF…and with HAMAS.” (p. 14-15) More important details here from the CounterjihadReport.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder was included in the full protection of the terror networks and associated people. Congressman Gohmert of Texas challenged AG Holder to no avail in a chilling exchange.

Here is where the ‘words matter’ material documentation began. The Obama administration took this agenda to new standard.

In 2009, DHS published via the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment a ‘Rightwing Extremism’ document, pinpointing those that may challenge the Obama Muslim doctrine. Additionally, DHS posted The Department of Homeland Security launched a ‘Do’s and Dont’s bulletin.

The entire complexion of the Department of Homeland Security began to change with new personnel and outreach under Secretary Janet Napolitano. The outreach extended to law enforcement agencies of which LAPD demonstrates.

The order to purge documents, training materials and database was made. The proof is here.

Barak Obama was not finished. In 2015, the White House introduced a strategy for CVE, Counter Violent Extremism.

Then comes the foreign policy of Obama. All deference to Iran began before Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and continues today. Secret back channels to Iran using Ambassador Burns began in 2008. Further, there is Iraq and Syria with Islamic State. Documents here on ISIS prove the intelligence and forecasts were known, available and delivered.

This would not be complete without mentioning China, Russia or North Korea where policies are non-existent.

The Paris attack was a slaughter and Obama found it wise to snub the solidarity march with other world leaders.

Obama touted Yemen as one of his successes but the country collapsed. Finally, the Obama policy doctrine crumbled and the cause was fully explained here. Obama wilfully recoiled as he and Hillary did on Benghazi.

It really no longer matters that Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry refuse to use key terms to describe militant Islam, the entire well verse and informed world have defined it for them. What does matter beyond the words are the policies and refusals of missions, strategies and conditions to keep America, her interests and allies safe.

It is no wonder there is no global respect for the Obama administration and there is much less to fear from her.

In summary, Obama owns this terror, owns this jihad and owns the death as well as the genocide. This is his legacy, he owns it as his own scarlet letter.

POTUS, No Executive Order to Close Gitmo

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Official offers details on Gitmo detainees who kill more Americans

An official who spoke to CNN Thursday put the numbers at fewer than 15 who went on to attack Americans or coalition forces in Afghanistan. The number of Americans killed in these attacks is believed to be in the single digits, according to the U.S. official, who is familiar with the matter.

“Because many of these incidents were large-scale firefights in a war zone, we cannot always distinguish whether Americans were killed by the former detainees or by others in the same fight,” the official said. More here.

USN: The White House was unable to come up with a strong legal strategy for executive action in this case, as the White House teams did in the cases of gun control and immigration executive orders, even though Obama serves as commander-in-chief and the office that he occupies traditionally has wider latitude in military matters. Obama sent a closure plan to Congress in February.

Report: Obama Administration Is ‘Not Pursuing’ an Executive Order to Close Guantanamo

TheBlaze: The Obama administration is not planning to use an executive order to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after officials determined that such an order would not be a “viable” strategy, “sources familiar with the deliberations” told Reuters.

According to Reuters, the decision “narrows the already slim chances that President Barack Obama can fulfill his pledge to close the notorious offshore prison before leaving office in January.”

While campaigning for president in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama promised to close the controversial facility if elected. Earlier this year, the president announced a plan to close the facility that was met with opposition in Congress.

The source told Reuters that the administration won’t pursue an executive order to close the facility, although the president is eager to close the prison.

“It was just deemed too difficult to get through all of the hurdles that they would need to get through, and the level of support they were likely to receive on it was thought to be too low to generate such controversy, particularly at a sensitive (time) in an election cycle.”

Myles Caggins, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters, “The administration’s goal is to work with Congress to find a solution to close Guantanamo.”

Related reading: Obama Submitted the Plan to Close Gitmo, Rejected

Related from the White House in 2011:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 7, 2011

FACT SHEET: NEW ACTIONS ON GUANTANAMO AND DETAINEE POLICY