Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Yes folks this really happened our confused paranoid guy living in London´s flat 3B woman´s bathroom happened to see a cop making a gun sign. as you know locking yourself up into a dark room for years isn´t good for your brain if you´ve been bron in a circus by a very paranoid cult family. so this really happened!


Julian Assange prompts ridicule with tweet about policeman 'making gun sign' at him

There is a danger when you lock yourself away from the world for more than five years that you begin to lose your grip on reality.So it appears with Julian Assange, who appears to have become rather overheated by the sight of a policeman gnawing on his finger.Assange, the Wikileaks founder who took refuge inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in June 2012 rather than face questioning in Sweden over alleged sex offences, appeared to be under the impression the office was making a gun sign, possibly aimed at him in a threatening manner.


The Australian-born campaigner - who claims he would eventually be extradited to the United States if he left the Embassy - wrote on his Twitter page:“At 13:48 yesterday police surveillance looks at me and makes a gun sign. Whether threatening to shoot me or shoot himself isn't clear.”Given that it appears fairly clear from the photograph that the policeman in question was simply bored and chewing his finger, the response was all-too predictable.“I think you may have been stuck in the embassy for too long, Julian,” said on Twitter user, with another chortling: “We must stop nail biters from terrifying recluses!”Before long social media users began posting pictures of celebrities in similarly ‘threatening’ poses, such as John Travolta, in his classic finger in the air dance move from Saturday Night Fever, and David Miliband brandishing a dangerous looking banana.Someone else posted a video of the Spice Girls, with Victoria Beckham pointing her finger at the camera in an, erm, dangerous manner.Don’t worry Julian, everyone is right behind you.Or as one wag suggested, “why don’t you pop outside and ask him?”.
WikiLeaks related News / Re: Wikileaks is a Front for Russian Intelligence
« Last post by J.C on June 30, 2017, 16:03:08 PM »


who on earth is putting so much effort in just writing a name of a criminal group if not this guy?

That´s why:

Wikileaks is a Front for Russian Intelligence
WikiLeaks related News / Cybersexism in Three Acts
« Last post by J.C on June 30, 2017, 15:51:06 PM »
AMONG THE MANY different senses of “risk” implicit in the title of Laura Poitras’s new documentary about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the risk entailed in making a film about events that are still unfolding. After screening the film in May at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, Poitras was impelled to reedit her film in light of ongoing developments involving the film’s protagonists. She then pulled the revised film from its April 24, 2017 US premiere to make minor changes in light of recent remarks by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions about Assange. Even after the (for now) final cut, her story continues to unfold. On May 17, 12 days after the film’s limited theatrical opening in the United States, Chelsea Manning (who was responsible for a large release of classified data to WikiLeaks in 2010) was released from prison; on May 19, the Swedish government announced that it had discontinued its seven-year rape investigation into Assange, an investigation that figures prominently in Risk. Despite its concern with events of the present and immediate past, however, Risk makes an important argument about the relationship between cyberlibertarianism and Western liberalism, which should outlast the vicissitudes of current events.

Put most directly, in Risk Laura Poitras offers us a powerful, immanent feminist critique of the sexism of the cyberlibertarian and infosec (information security) communities, one which implicitly makes the case that cyberlibertarianism does not escape the patriarchal structures of power that inform Western liberalism, but reproduces them. As such, Risk marks something of a shift in Poitras’s attitude toward the infosec community and its cyberlibertarian ideology from her Oscar-winning 2014 film Citizenfour. Indeed, as she says in one of the several “production note” voiceovers that punctuate the film, while she had initially thought she could avoid the “contradictions” within the community, she had come to realize that these contradictions were in fact what her film was about. The contradictions she refers to inform her own conflicting attitudes — her belief in the tremendous political good being accomplished in the fight against state surveillance, censorship, and control of digital information, and her discomfort with the patriarchy, sexism, and abuse that permeate the infosec community. But there is another, implicit contradiction that the film lays bare: between the claims of cyberlibertarianism to resist and oppose the structure of power that dominates Western civilization, particularly the governmental institutions of the State, and the perpetuation of this structure of power within infosec communities.

Another subtext of the film’s title, then, might be that risk, as defined by patriarchy, is something that inheres in the agency and actions of men, and that women can only be the cause of risk, or its objects. Despite Poitras’s contradictory feelings toward the infosec community, the thesis of the film is clear: cyberlibertarianism is not, as it portrays itself, an ideology of freedom opposed to the constraints and control of patriarchal, white, Western civilization, one which resists or challenges that structure, but rather it is of a piece with that structure, both in its understanding of (male) human agency, and in its sexist understanding of and actions toward women. Cyberlibertarian rhetoric proclaims freedom for all individuals, but the story Risk tells suggests otherwise. Poitras makes this case implicitly, or rather she makes it by showing rather than telling, by letting the images, actions, and words of Assange, and to a lesser, but crucial, degree Tor developer Jacob Appelbaum, make the case for her. Assange says at one point in the film that “every person has the right to read and to speak freely with no exceptions,” but the film’s depiction both of his own contempt for “radical feminists,” and the allegations brought against him and Appelbaum for serial sexual abuse, implies that this right belongs mainly or more centrally to men, that freedom of agency belongs to men, not women, and is aided by male control over technology.

Although Appelbaum’s role in the film is less prominent than Assange’s, he is crucial in catalyzing Poitras’s change of heart. Each of the first two acts of the film presents us with instances in which Appelbaum is articulating the ideology of information security, but in which he is seen acting insensitively or disrespectfully. In the film’s first act, we see Appelbaum in Cairo at a conference called “A Future in the Making,” on the role of IT companies in supporting the Egyptian “revolution” in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. The only panelist without a jacket and tie (and the only white, Western speaker), Appelbaum comes across as brash and populist in his loudly repeated challenge to the IT executives on the panel: “Will you all agree to stand against censorship on the internet?” Although his rhetoric, equating internet freedom with democracy, prompts applause from many in the audience, Appelbaum’s hyperbolic, almost aggressive affect is problematic for others, especially the IT executives and members of the Egyptian government. Appelbaum’s idiosyncratic Western persona can seem almost heroic, but later, in the film’s middle section, Poitras presents a more troubling portrait.

Speaking to a majority-female group in Tunis about cybersecurity, Appelbaum tries to underscore the importance of anonymous browsing software like Tor by likening “safe internet use” to “safe sex.” Poitras trains her camera on a couple of the women wearing hijabs who have been made truly uncomfortable by Appelbaum’s explicit comparison between using condoms and using cyber-protection. When he likens the loss of privacy in internet use to condoms breaking and women getting pregnant, not only does the graphic metaphor perpetuate the discomfort of his Tunisian audience, but it also serves to remind the viewer that the consequences of unsafe sex (or unsafe technology) fall primarily on women.

In the film’s third act, this asymmetry is underscored in a conference addressing the Tor sexual harassment and assault charges against Appelbaum, as well as in a crucially personal moment when Poitras herself reports on her brief involvement with Appelbaum in 2014 and his abusive behavior toward a friend of hers after she broke off the relationship. In some sense, Appelbaum provides the affective key or motivator for her film. Near the end of the film, she notes in a voiceover that Appelbaum declined to be interviewed for the film, saying he wanted it to have a different ending. Poitras concedes that she wanted a different ending, too.

Although Appelbaum may have been a catalyst for Poitras’s feminist critique of the infosec community, Assange is clearly at the film’s center. The case against Assange, the portrayal of him as dependent on and exploitative of women, begins right away, although its significance only becomes truly apparent later in the film. In the film’s opening scene, his close advisor Sarah Harrison, whose intimacy with Assange throughout the film is evident, acts as his “secretary,” calling the US State Department to try to arrange a call for him to tell them about some major leaks that were about to come out. “I’m calling from the office of Julian Assange,” she says on the phone to the State Department’s emergency hotline. “It’s very important. Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks.” This asymmetrical relationship between the two mirrors the traditional workplace roles of men and women throughout the history of the West, as does the fact that women perform most of the affective labor in Assange’s organization. All of his lawyers in the film are women, and Harrison serves as his caretaker throughout, playing the role of his “helpmeet,” even though the film does its best to remain silent on the question of whether they are a couple. Poitras says early on in the film that she was surprised at the access Assange was giving her; even here one might see Assange as offering a kind of sexualized intimacy, or one that at least keeps him surrounded by an all-female “staff.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the technical work in the film is done by men (Assange, Appelbaum, and Joseph Farrell).

But Poitras reveals Assange’s explicit sexism most unflatteringly in a scene when he is discussing with another female attorney how he should publicly address the sexual assault charges made against him by two Swedish women. Even when his attorney urges him not to talk about his belief that the charges resulted from a conspiracy between government officials and radical feminists, he continues to do so with her in private. She is clearly worried that he will do so in public as well, that his dismissive or vindictive attitude toward these women who accused him will come out or show through his attempts at contrition. One of the women, he notes, co-owns a lesbian sex club in Gothenburg, which is proof to him that she travels in “those circles.”

Poitras portrays Assange very differently from how she portrays Snowden in Citizenfour. Where Snowden comes across as an almost naïve, sympathetic figure, Assange is arrogant, standoffish, sexist. He sees human actions through the lens of computing or algorithms — public answers are prescripted, possibilities are statistically weighed, choices are calculated. In one of his most disgusting moments, he characterizes sex charges as a “platform” for fame, explaining that while he was well known in media circles before he was charged with sexual assault, he only became a household name after the charges — leading him to suggest, albeit in jest, that one might take the “risk” of committing sexual assault every six months or so for the “gain” in renown that it could provide.

The film ends with a completely new third act, which takes up, among other issues, the role of WikiLeaks in the 2016 US election. Very near the film’s end, after a segment from an interview between Assange and NBC’s Chuck Todd in which Assange makes a principled defense of his commitment to total information freedom, Poitras cuts to a video of Trump basking in the applause of the crowd at the announcement of his unexpected election as president. Without saying anything, this juxtaposition says everything that the film has been after. Here the implicit connections between Trump and Assange come to the fore. Like Trump, Assange is a narcissist (we see him repeatedly concerned with his grooming, how he will look to the public). Like Trump, Assange is paranoid (the media hates WikiLeaks; feminists and the deep state are out to get him). And like Trump, Assange is sexist.

But despite these implied parallels, the most powerful message in the film is not about individuals like Assange or Appelbaum or Trump, but about the contradictions in the cyberlibertarian ideology of the infosec community. In foregrounding the role of WikiLeaks in the DNC email hacks and their role in getting Trump elected president, Poitras lets her viewers see the continuity between cyberlibertarianism and the traditional structures of white, Western, male power — autonomy and agency belong to the individual white male in both cases, and women are seen to be objects for men to use for their own advancement or benefit. Although Poitras was by no means a supporter of Hillary Clinton (indeed, quite the contrary) the film implicitly makes the case that the attacks on Clinton were motivated by sexism, by a patriarchal Western civilization feeling threatened about its historical holds on the reins of power.

In a conversation with Assange at the end of the film, the last time we hear him speak, Poitras asks if his obsession with the political struggle for total freedom of information isn’t really about power, linking cyberlibertarianism to traditional liberalism. In response to this, Assange tries to explain his position through an extended metaphor: if you can only see your own garden, you are limited to weeding and watering and keeping it growing, but if like him you are able to see the global situation then the world is your garden and you have a responsibility to act globally. Assange immediately recognizes that “perhaps I have a God complex,” as he performs what Donna Haraway has called the “God trick” of white male power.

After this discussion, the film’s last words from Assange (in a text read by Poitras) are about his reaction to the near-final cut of the film. He tells her that perhaps they will find a way to work together again some time in the future, but “presently the film is a severe threat to my freedom, and I am forced to treat it accordingly.” At the end as at the beginning, it is the Western, liberal notion of freedom as white male autonomy that Assange is committed to — a notion of freedom that has been used in the service of the domination and oppression of women, people of color, and the nonhuman world. By running the risk of exposing the fundamental sexism both of Assange and of the broader hacker community, Poitras makes visible in Risk the structural alliance between cyberlibertarianism and Western patriarchy, in which the aesthetic and political agency of women can only be seen as a threat to masculine autonomy, power, and freedom.

Swedish / Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned
« Last post by Signhilde on May 20, 2017, 11:03:06 AM »
Utredningen mot Assange läggs ned

Överåklagare Marianne Ny har beslutat att lägga ned förundersökningen om misstänkt våldtäkt begången av Julian Assange. Skälet är det inte finns anledning att tro att beslutet att överlämna honom till Sverige kan verkställas inom överskådlig tid.

Vid en presskonferens i Stockholm den 19 maj redogjorde Marianne Ny för sitt beslut.
– Julian Assange tog för nästan fem år sedan sin tillflykt till Ecuadors ambassad i London, där han fortfarande befinner sig. Han har alltså undandragit sig alla försök för svenska och brittiska myndigheter att verkställa beslutet om att överlämna honom till Sverige enligt EU-reglerna om en europeisk arresteringsorder. Min bedömning är att överlämningen inte kan verkställas inom överskådlig tid, säger Marianne Ny.

Enligt lagen ska en brottsutredning ske skyndsamt. Vid den tidpunkt när en åklagare inte har möjlighet att vidta fler utredningsåtgärder är åklagaren skyldig att lägga ned förundersökningen.
– Alla möjligheter att för närvarande driva utredningen framåt är uttömda. För att kunna gå vidare skulle det krävas att Julian Assange formellt skulle delges misstanke om brottet. Det kan inte förväntas att vi skulle få bistånd av Ecuador med detta. Utredningen läggs därför ned.
– Om han vid en senare tidpunkt skulle göra sig tillgänglig kan jag besluta att omedelbart återuppta förundersökningen. Mitt beslut innebär att det för tillfället inte är meningsfullt att driva utredningen vidare, säger Marianne Ny.
Som en konsekvens av beslutet har åklagaren hävt häktningen och återkallat den europeiska arresteringsordern.
– Eftersom det under nuvarande omständigheter inte är möjligt att driva utredningen framåt framstår det inte längre som proportionerligt att Julian Assange ska vara fortsatt häktad. Det innebär också att det inte finns förutsättningar att fortsätta förundersökningen, säger Marianne Ny.
Länk till nedläggningsbeslutet (pdf)
Länk till häktningsbeslutet (pdf)
Kronologi (pdf)
Målnummer i Stockholms tingsrätt: B 12885-10

010-562 50 20
WikiLeaks related News / Re: Wikileaks is a Front for Russian Intelligence
« Last post by J.C on May 08, 2017, 19:24:00 PM »
OK. I am happy for all those following this exposing Thread about Wikileaks and Julian Assange since last year. and I just want to put some info here:

The WikiLeaks hacking saga:

Strafor being hacked by WikiLeaks neurotic hacker-kids in 2012
soon after the Syria Mails have been hacked and released where this forum started distancing itself from the Russian Fraud Assange
(side note: paranoid Assange locked all accounts related to joyce in the end he was so depressed he just dumped all mails because to many accounts the idiot had to lock.)

The Saga continued and Wikileaks kept leaking hacked stuff. (THEY ALSO had some NSA material which many think of that the call is coming straight from inside the house)
As the Snowden Operation started and little green men took over Ukraine´s Crimea and some drunken Russian air force members shot done a passenger plane the shit was getting hot in this spy-wars. Ukraine was some kind of test environment for the coming attacks on foreign politics. Maidan was just the begin of an wider attack and sadly just a test to push forward an malign agenda.

Text messages warn Ukraine protesters they are 'participants in mass riot'

Wikileaks proofed since then itself as just an arm of (many) foreign intelligence Agency´s cloaked in the name of Transparency. 

But this time Assange and his brigade of brainless followers failed to push another candidate his masters would have love to see in place. 
Assange will not stop to get his head out of the asses he stuck it into. no matter what the costs will be.

Wikileaks is compromised. always was and always will be.
Petitions / Stop Stingray surveillance
« Last post by von on April 28, 2017, 10:21:41 AM »

Put a stop to invasive Stingray surveillance

Stingrays (also known as “IMSI-catchers”) are surveillance devices that can suck up sensitive, personal info in our cell phones. Calls, emails, and texts – our most intimate moments.

 You don’t have to do anything wrong to be a victim. Stingrays CAN’T target one person. They CAN vacuum up an entire neighbourhood, or the private data of up to 10,000 people at once.
We know they’re being used in countries including the U.S. and Australia, and other governments are fighting to keep their use a secret. We must rein this in. Tell law-makers: It’s time to put a stop to invasive Stingray cellphone surveillance.

Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using Stingray technologies for invasive and irresponsible surveillance of the most intimate personal information found on your cell phone – without your knowledge.

These invasive tools are already being used in secret by law enforcement in select cities and countries around the world, and we need to stop them before their use becomes even more commonplace.

When used, Stingrays can invade the personal conversations of anyone, at anytime, and you’ll never know if your security has been compromised or which intimate moments have been revealed.

We need to take action. It’s time to hold law enforcement agencies accountable and demand transparency. We demand oversight, accountability, and judicial safeguards to ensure our right to privacy is respected.

We have a right to our privacy and security. When governments violate these rights, our most basic intimate moments are violated, and our safety, security and trust are all put in jeopardy.

Government oversight officials are starting to wake up, but they’ll only stop Stingrays if we speak out now. Stop Stingrays from invading your cell phone.
Trump Administration Changes Its Tune on Ed Snowden, Moscow’s Star Defector
CIA Director Pompeo and AG Sessions blast celebrity leaker

The recent statement by CIA Director Mike Pompeo that WikiLeaks is a fraud and an anti-American actor on the global stage has led to gnashing of teeth among fans of that celebrated “privacy organization.” Pompeo did not mince words, declaring that WikiLeaks is an enemy of the United States and Western democracies and he denounced its founder Julian Assange in unusually blunt terms:

“WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service…it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations. It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia… Julian Assange and his kind are not the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom…Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value. He relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous. He’s a fraud, a coward hiding behind a screen.”

The seriousness of the Trump administration’s outing of WikiLeaks and Assange as enemies of free societies has been demonstrated further by reports that the Department of Justice is seriously considering pressing charges against Assange over his role in recent leaks of CIA hacking tools. That Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week described Assange’s arrest as a “priority” for his department indicates that this is more than a theoretical debate for the Trump administration.
This represents a remarkable turnabout for the White House, particularly since last year Donald Trump professed his “love” for WikiLeaks when it was hurting Hillary Clinton by releasing emails that our Intelligence Community has assessed were stolen by Russian spies then passed to Assange to bolster the Trump campaign. Now, however, the president says he is okay with Assange’s arrest, and the rest of his administration has followed suit, abruptly changing its line on the fugitive who’s been holed up in Ecuador’s embassy in London for the last five years, on the lam from rape charges in Sweden.

Mike Pompeo stated a truth known to Western counterspies for years—that Assange is a Kremlin agent and WikiLeaks is a pawn of Putin— but his public utterance is a game-changer. Now we must reassess what WikiLeaks really is and whose bidding it’s been doing, at least since 2010, when it leaked hundreds of thousands of classified State Department cables stolen by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, a disaffected Army private.

Several members of Team Trump may now be facing FBI questions about their dealings with WikiLeaks, especially Roger Stone, the longtime Trump associate and self-described dirty trickster who repeatedly boasted of his relationship with Assange, including admissions that he had foreknowledge of WikiLeaks email dumps that were damaging to the Clinton campaign and Democrats. Collusion with shady political operatives is one thing, while collusion with hostile foreign intelligence services is quite another, legally speaking. Anybody who’s been playing footsie with Assange and his “privacy organization” to influence American politics with help from the Kremlin, should expect a visit by Federal investigators sometime soon.

Admitting what WikiLeaks really is puts certain events of the last several years into proper focus. In particular, the key role played by Assange and his helpers in getting Edward Snowden to Moscow in June 2013 must be reassessed in light of Pompeo’s statement. As I’ve explained for years, Snowden’s defection—first to Hong Kong then to Russia—was from the outset an espionage drama stage-managed by the Kremlin to harm Western intelligence. That Assange played a pivotal role, first in getting Snowden to steal more than a million classified U.S. and Allied intelligence files, then in shipping him to Putin, demonstrates that the official story about Snowden is a sham.

Last year, Congress admitted as much, blowing apart the carefully crafted fiction that Snowden was a pure-hearted whistleblower moved to expose the secrets of the National Security Agency out of patriotism. In truth, Snowden was a mere patsy, while the Snowden Operation was designed by Kremlin spies to harm the NSA-led Western intelligence alliance, the most powerful espionage partnership in history. For Putin, NSA and its global web of signals intelligence, which involves partners in all corners of the globe, represented a threat to the Kremlin’s plans in Russia’s “near abroad” and beyond. It was therefore imperative to strike blows against NSA and its friends.

There’s nothing new here. Moscow wanted to inflict pain on NSA and its powerful foreign relationships even before Putin came to power. Back in the 1990s, I was tracking Kremlin efforts involving Active Measures and disinformation against NSA, the agency I worked for at the time. This Russian ruse was based on ECHELON, an actual Five Eyes top-secret SIGINT program back in the 1970s that was used by pro-Kremlin activists as a catch-all phrase for allegedly illegal intelligence gathering by NSA and its partners.

Bolstered by Western activists-cum-journalists, the usual mix of Kremlin agents and useful idiots, ECHELON became a sensation, especially in Europe, resulting in public inquiries and even an investigation by the European Parliament. This was shaping up to be a PR debacle for NSA and its foreign partners, but it fell apart after 9/11, when Westerners suddenly had little interest in the supposed perfidy of NSA when terrorists were killing us.

Moreover, the ECHELON campaign lacked much detail. NSA counterintelligence assessed that Moscow wasn’t going to stop its efforts to smear Western SIGINT, and that if the Russians ever got their hands on top-secret files to bolster their propaganda, we’d have a big problem on our hands. We were just “one asshole away” from disaster, as I stated more than 15 years ago inside NSA—to deaf ears.

That asshole showed up, as he was bound to eventually, and his name was Edward Snowden. This was no accident, and armed with Snowden’s vast trove of classified documents, Putin inflicted incredible damage on Western intelligence, targeting NSA’s foreign partnerships one after the other over the last four years, causing unprecedented heartburn for American spies. WikiLeaks facilitated the Snowden Operation at every step, playing an indispensable role in what Russian spies surely consider one of their greatest successes of all time.

Of course, NSA is still there, and so is the Western SIGINT alliance, but the damage has been real. We also need to consider that Moscow, which thinks long-term, may have had plans beyond merely inflicting pain on NSA and its partners in the never-ending SpyWar between East and West. The Snowden Operation didn’t just hurt specific Western intelligence programs, it created a climate of doubt that sometimes verged on hysteria about anything Western spies do.

Thanks to Snowden and his battalions of cultish supporters in their echo chambers in all corners of the globe, any findings from the NSA-led Western intelligence alliance are automatically suspect. This has proved very useful to Vladimir Putin, since the lion’s share of evidence establishing collusion between his government and Team Trump comes from Western SIGINT. We now know that several Western spy services, including NSA, possess damning evidence of clandestine links in 2016 and before between Team Trump and Russian spies.

Although it will be nearly impossible to get such highly classified intelligence into American courts, these phone and email intercepts provide crucial lead information to the FBI and other agencies that are conducting the counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump and his associates. When this top-secret information eventually comes to light, we can expect that Trump and his defenders will fall back on the time-tested script devised by the Snowden Operation:

NSA cannot be trusted. It violates the privacy of average Americans. Its foreign partnerships are illegal and skirt U.S. laws. NSA—not Moscow—is the real problem. You will have heard it all before—we’re already getting it from far-right outlets in their efforts to deflect attention from the current administration’s KremlinGate problem.

It was exceptionally convenient for Moscow that Ed Snowden, its star defector and all-purpose pawn, helped elect Donald Trump by creating unwarranted fears of American intelligence and insulating Putin’s preferred White House candidate against leaks of damning SIGINT. It’s even more convenient for the Russians that their worldwide anti-NSA campaign serves to keep Team Trump in the White House, even as evidence of their collusion with Moscow quietly mounts.

Admitting the truth about WikiLeaks, Snowden, and their pivotal role in American politics in recent years will be painful to some—accolades will be reassessed, awards may need to be returned, media stars will finally get the scrutiny they deserve—but this admission is here now, spurred by the work of the FBI and Congress, and the statement of our CIA director.

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee.

 (some pictures may have been modified , JJ. : )
Introductions / Re: Hello
« Last post by J.C on April 26, 2017, 20:00:44 PM »
Introductions / Hello
« Last post by Vlad on April 23, 2017, 16:26:43 PM »

I have a website which may be of interest and I would welcome constructive criticism

The domain name for the British signals intelligence agency GCHQ just happened to be lying around so I took it.

Belarus / Re: Belarus Activists Arrested Before Planned Protest
« Last post by J.C on March 25, 2017, 16:03:27 PM »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10