In the midst of the holiday season Congress decided to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 or NDAA. The bill was later signed into law by President Obama with little if any fanfare. When this happened much of the corporate media was focusing in on invented news stories like the Duck Dynasty garbage. What’s really sad is that it is doubtful that many members of Congress have even read the bill at all. If they did in fact read it and voted for it knowing what was in it than there is little doubt that they have violated their oath of office and should be held accountable. The NDAA contains a number of highly questionable sections that run contrary to the principles articulated in the United States Constitution. Specifically, language contained in the bill appears to authorize cyber warfare operations against the American people.
One particularly horrifying section is section 1071 which authorizes the Department of Defense to enhance its capacity to analyze captured records. Apparently the National Security Agency by itself doesn’t have enough capabilities to analyze all of the records it captures so the Department of Defense is going to help. The section authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish a center called the Conflict Records Research Center. The purpose of this new organization is to establish a research database to analyze records captured from countries, organizations and individuals now or once hostile to the United States. It defines a captured record as a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations.
This language is purposefully broad and can be interpreted to also include records captured from American citizens who are simply angry at the criminality of the federal government. After all, the language infers that they can analyze records from individuals who are now or were once hostile to the United States and provides no exception based on citizenship or nationality. Due to the fact that the Internet is now increasingly being described as a 21st century battlefield, combat operations can also fall under the umbrella of offensive cyber warfare operations.
Section 1071 also allows the Secretary of Defense to accept gifts from any source that would enhance the operational capabilities or defray the costs of the Conflict Records Research Center. Sources allowed include corporations, foreign governments and private charities. The only exception is if the gifts or donations would compromise or appear to compromise the ability or integrity of the Department of Defense or any of its employees.
This language pretty much gives the green light for all sorts of dirty dealings and corporate espionage activities since the operational purpose of the Conflict Records Research Center is to be able to analyze as many records as possible. The more records and data that they have the more analysis they are able to perform. So by default this facility will be able to accept information from almost anyone. It makes it almost impossible to question their integrity by accepting data from anyone who volunteers information regardless of where it comes from.
All of this is even more concerning when one considers that the NDAA also has a lot of new cyber warfare initiatives. Section 931 through Section 942 contains a bunch of crazy stuff dealing with the world of cyber warfare..
Section 932 authorizes the creation of a position known as The Principal Cyber Advisor which will be responsible for supervising offensive and defensive cyber warfare activities. Obviously this position would not be created unless the federal government is intending upon involving itself in both offensive and defensive cyber warfare well into the future.
Section 933 instructs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a broad mission analysis of the government’s cyber warfare capabilities. The required analysis will focus primarily on how they will manage, increase and enhance their personnel assigned to cyber warfare operations. It even disallows the reduction of cyber warfare personnel assigned to the Air National Guard.
Section 936 requests the Secretary of Defense to strengthen outreach and threat awareness programs for small businesses. This is allegedly to assist businesses that are awarded contracts by the Department of Defense to understand cyber threats, develop plans to protect intellectual property and networks of such businesses. Realistically, this section appears to give the Department of Defense the authority to mandate all sorts of cyber security requirements on small businesses that they do transactions with. The language of the section makes it sound as if they will be doing these small businesses a favor when the opposite appears to be the case.
Section 940 authorizes the President to establish a process and policy to control the proliferation of cyber weapons through law enforcement activities, financial means, diplomatic engagement and pretty much any other means that the President considers appropriate. This would also include potential private industry participation in the initiative. The objective of the process is to suppress the trade of so-called cyber tools that could be used for criminal, terrorist or military activities. The term cyber weapon is not explicitly defined in the section so this could be considered almost anything be it software or hardware that they declare could potentially be used for a nefarious purpose. Even something like bit torrent and torrent related applications could be considered cyber weapons since copyrighted material is consistently transferred back and forth using these tools. As a result, the use of these tools could potentially fall under the classification of criminal activity. Once again we have the President being given expansive powers from Congress with its extremely broad use of language in the bill.
Section 941 directs the president to establish an interagency policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace. The word adversaries is yet again not specifically defined in the section so this could also mean almost anything. With many American citizens not trusting the United States government this could mean a policy to deter or stifle anyone from political opponents to protesters who voice their disgust on the Internet.
Overall, between the records collection initiative and the immense cyber warfare planning that is outlined in the NDAA it is becoming painfully clear that the United States government is turning the Internet into a battlefield. Obviously independent media outlets have done a great deal of damage to the legitimacy of the federal government by exposing their scams and frauds. So as a result, why wouldn’t the establishment view these voices of dissent as adversaries on a cyber battlefield? They could merely claim that these are entities spreading enemy propaganda or other ridiculous nonsense.
The little mainstream discussion that has been had on this legislation has focused primarily on the continued policy of indefinitely detaining so-called terrorists and Obama’s statement about how this bill will help to eventually close Guantanamo Bay. Of course Obama as Commander in Chief could have closed down Guantanamo Bay years ago if he really wanted. He could have also ordered the release of these alleged terrorists many of who were either in the wrong place at the wrong time or low level fighters. Instead he falsely claims that Congress is blocking him from doing any of these things as political cover. This is ridiculous considering that as President of the United States he is the man ultimately in charge of the entire military. Other than making declarations of war which is reserved for the legislative branch, these powers are well within his constitutional powers as President. He also has the power to grant pardons and could potentially pardon any of these people currently being held in Guantanamo Bay based on humanitarian reasons. It just shows what a joke Obama and his whole regime really is.
There obviously has been no mainstream discussion about how this bill authorizes the ridiculous Conflicts Record Research Center and continues the push of the government’s cyber warfare capabilities. More importantly there has been no discussion about how these cyber warfare initiatives could be directed at individuals who are opposed to the federal government in some way. By using broad language it is clear that this is intentionally done so they can at some point legally justify offensive cyber warfare operations against the American people if needed. The NDAA offers no distinction between American protesters or foreign fighters burning American flags as it pertains to their cyber warfare plans. According to the bill they are all one in the same because they are all opposed to the United States government in some form.
Read the various sections of the bill for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Obviously the aforementioned sections contained within raise some serious constitutional questions as it becomes increasingly clear that the federal government is gearing up for war both conventional and cyber against the American people.