That’s how you’ll know we’re in.

Photo by Trevor Paglen

The CIA asked that the [Salt Pit black site] officers not be identified at all, saying doing so would benefit terrorists and hostile nations. Spokesman George Little called the AP’s decision “nothing short of reckless” but did not provide any specific information about threats. The CIA has previously provided detailed arguments in efforts to persuade senior executives at the AP and other U.S. news organizations to withhold or delay publishing information it said would endanger lives or national security, but that did not happen in this case.

The AP determined that even the most sophisticated commercial information services could not be used to derive the officers’ full names or, for example, find their home addresses knowing only their first names and the fact of their CIA employment. The AP has withheld further details that could help identify them.

Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, February 9, 2011.

Matthew Zirbel’s last name was released in a brief submitted on behalf of Jay Bybee, to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility. The brief was posted online at the House Judiciary Committee’s website. Zirbel ’s name was subsequently redacted, but not before internet historians took note:

Matthew Zirbel, who is in charge of the Salt Pit, orders Gul Rahman to be stripped semi-naked, chained to the concrete floor, and left overnight without blankets. The incident is confirmed by four government officials. Afghan guards, paid by the CIA and working under agency supervision, take Rahman to an abandoned warehouse and drag him around on the concrete floor, causing bruising and lacerations, before chaining him in his cell. When night falls, the temperature plummets. Rahman is found in the morning, frozen to death. Hypothermia” is the cause of death. Guards bury the body in an unmarked, unacknowledged cemetery used by Afghan forces. The man’s family is not notified, and his remains are never returned for a proper burial. The man is not listed on any registry of captives, not even as a so-called “ghost detainee.” One government official says simply, “He just disappeared from the face of the earth.”

Yes. All that’s left are the cold, hard facts.

The AP is identifying Matt, Paul and other current and former undercover CIA officers — though only by partial names — because they are central to the question of who is being held accountable and because it enhances the credibility of AP’s reporting in this case. AP’s policy is to use names whenever possible. The AP determined that even the most sophisticated commercial information services could not be used to derive the officers’ full names or, for example, find their home addresses knowing only their first names and the fact of their CIA employment. The AP has withheld further details that could help identify them.

Hey, Matt and Paul. Let’s play a game.  How long do you think it would take me to get your full names, and publish them, just like any other U.S. citizen’s name would be published if he were accused of criminal conduct? Think it would take me two weeks? No? How about less than that?

For example, when a suspected terrorist froze to death in a CIA prison in Afghanistan in 2002, the CIA inspector general faulted Matt, the spy running the prison, and expressed concerns about Paul, the top officer in the country, according to former officials. In the end, however, the CIA decided not to discipline either Matt or Paul.

Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, February 9, 2011.

Let’s just put it like this: if you said no, you’re getting colder.

Keith Alexander, what can I say? Congratulations! I was going to drop off some cookies at the NSA. But let’s face it, your confirmation as chief of USCYBERCOM calls for something special. I think I need to break out the champagne. So I got some Rose Perrier-Jouet Cuvee Fleur de Champagne. Does that sound nice?

After all, it’s not everyday that one gets promoted to four star general. That promotion really doesn’t do much for the claim that you’re not out to militarize the internet, but I’m not going to let politics ruin a special occasion. That would be bad manners indeed.

You know who else can celebrate with us today? Mike McConnell over at Booz Allen, for one. He needs a little break before he starts on the hard work of  ”reengineering” the internet. In fact, call your friends at Abraxas, Narus, SAIC…And sir, listen up: I know how you would really like to celebrate. You’re only human, right? So I’m smuggling this content in on the RSS feed under the guise of providing an ”analysis” of  its semiotic code and symbolic content. We can “deconstruct” this video as commentary on the outsourcing of U.S. intelligence operations to private industry, and the ramifications of that special relationship. So relax, because we’re actually working here.  And then, when we knock back the champagne, I’ll let you know who I think is really getting fucked today.

The U.S. media “is not publishing the station chief’s name because he remains undercover and his name is classified…”

Welcome home, Jonathan Banks.

Here’s to working toward the goal that, in regard to outing each of your successors, the attitude in Pakistan is:

Ditto.

>

“Offensive actions could include shutting down part of an opponent’s computer network to preempt a cyber-attack against a U.S. target or changing a line of code in an adversary’s computer to render malicious software harmless. They are operations that destroy, disrupt or degrade targeted computers or networks.”

Keith. Put down the champagne. It’s time for a question about USCYBERCOM SEO.

Now tell Ms. N in precise detail why it’s unconstitutional.
Or you’ll face grave consequences.

I hear there’s some entertainment brewing.

And no, silly. It’s not the marionette show. Although, I did like puppets when I was a little girl. These days, though, it takes something a little more entertaining than a puppet show to keep me amused.  Some of you guys know what I mean, right? Ok, no. Seriously. It takes something like this quote from Major General Michael J. Basla, Vice Commander, Air Force Space Command, at DOD Bloggers’ Roundtable on 8 Nov 2010:

The other thing that we’ve done, we recognize that there’s a great deal of technical competence required in cyberspace experts. And so from an officer perspective, we have mandated that 80 percent of the force come in with technical degrees before they are admitted. I think the 80 percent is right. Am I wrong on that? Well, it’s a large number. And let me just tell you, it was originally 100 percent. And that’s why I’m saying 80 percent. It was originally 100 percent. We wanted to have tech, math, science, engineering degrees. But we were advised that there are some folks that could come from the social sciences that could contribute — you know, something about looking at the problem a little differently — that could contribute to our capability. So we’ve allowed for some exceptions. And how big that exception will be, I’m not quite sure.

Now that sounds like fun: AF social scientists looking for a good time in cyberspace, contributing something “a little different”  to “capability.” I wonder who advised that. That person is an evil genius. 

 We define insider threat as malevolent (or possibly inadvertent) actions by an already trusted person in a secure environment with access to sensitive information and information systems and sources. The focus is on malevolent insiders that started out as “good guys.” The specific goal of ADAMS is to detect anomalous behaviors before or shortly after they turn. Operators in the counterintelligence community are the target end-users for ADAMS insider threat detection.

Ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Rand Waltzman at DARPA.  He’s ready for the social science  insiders. And they are ready for him.

So what do you say? USCYBERCOM Party at Peterson AFB? Keith, sir?  Multi-billion dollar budget! So I know I can count on you to bring the champagne this time. And come on, Michael, you bring your social scientists. Dr. W, you’re in charge of the algorithms.  And me? I’m in such a great mood after reading about the social scientists, I’ll just bring the liquid sunshine  if you know what I mean. But shit, I think it’s going to get confusing over there, what with the fact that there are absolutely no guiding principals as to how all this is going to work.  So someone’s going to need to bring in a couple psychiatrists to keep everyone on the straight and narrow. Because that’s a strategy that’s worked well for the U.S. military in the past. But what the fuck. Let’s give it a try. Because you never know: maybe, just maybe, it will  work. And  then we’ll all be nice and safe. Just like when we were little girls. 

Before.

After:

This image has been transmitted to select representatives of some the following organizations, as well as domestic concerns, as a political protest against both USCYBERCOM and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which the U.S. Supreme Court handed down June 21, 2010.

The United States, through USCYBERCOM,  cannot  be allowed to  police a military global information machine.