                                  LATEST SURVEILLANCE LEAVES NOTHING TO
                                  CHANCE

   * We Will Know Who You Are
   * We Will Know Where You Are
   * We Will Know What You Do

   ABC News recently aired a story about a high-tech inventor who has
produced a type of radar device destined to be reduced in size to a
microchip. Projected to eventually cost less than fifty cents a copy, the
invention, the ABC report claimed and demonstrated, is capable of "seeing"
through walls and detecting biological signs of life on the other side such
as heartbeat and respiration.

   Touted as a significant breakthrough, especially in the area of search
and rescue involving such as bombed buildings and structural collapses due
to earthquakes, the device would be able to ascertain the presence of
victims invisible due to concrete rubble. The advantage, says its inventor,
is that the chip would be able to tell, by the biological signature, if the
victim were alive or even whether it was human or otherwise--a dog, for
instance.

   As with every new and amazing invention, there is always a segment of
the government that possesses a consummate talent for the covert misuse of
it. Every living biological organism, it is well known, has its own
peculiar genetic and bioenergetic signature, much the same as a physical
fingerprint. The aforementioned device is capable of taking great advantage
of that "bio-fingerprint." Imagine, for instance, the ability to use the
microchip radar to first map an individual's biological signature and then
deposit the digitized information of that unique signature into a computer
database. This could be done, for instance, while passing through the
ubiquitous metal detectors in any airport. Once that signature is on file,
it is not an unreasonable stretch of logic to imagine an unmarked van
carrying the radar chip and a copy of the database passing any home or
building with the ability to not only determine that there are people
occupying the dwelling, but who they are--and--whether or not they should,
according to the officials conducting the "survey", even be there.

   If this scenario, to some, appears to proceed from a Buck Rogers comic
strip or the pen of George Orwell, it should be noted that surveillance and
tracking technologies by government agencies has been taking a series of
quantum leaps. In a publication issued by the Strategic Studies Institute
(SSI) of the U.S. Army's War College, entitled,The Revolution in Military
Affairs and Conflict Short of War, much reference is made to developed
technology aimed at not only detection but tracking and identification. The
work, released in June of this year, is authored by Steven Metz, Ph.D.,
Associate Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic
Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College and co-authored by James Kievit.
The work, published in booklet form, details current problems faced by the
military of the world's only remaining super power, and includes a
fictional scenario that takes place in the second decade of the
twenty-first century--approximately 2010.

                        PERVASIVE VIOLENCE PREDICTED

    "During the Cold War," the document says, "the most strategically
significant form of conflict short of war--then called 'low-intensity
conflict'--was revolutionary insurgency in the Third World." This, the
document claims, was the result of Maoist type involvement that "sought to
overthrow fragile, pro-Western regimes. It also makes the ominous
prediction that "while war or near-war may be no more common than in past
decades, general, low-level violence will be pervasive."

    "The Gulf War," the authors submit, "was widely seen as a foretaste of
RMA [Revolution in Military Affairs] warfare, offering quick victory with
limited casualties. As a result, most attention has been on the
opportunities provided by RMA rather than its risks, costs, and unintended
side effects." (emphasis supplied).

    In reference to U.S. involvement in Latin American affairs and other
developing nations, Metz and Kievit candidly acknowledge that, "admittedly
no Third World insurgency directly endangered the United States..." which
apparently was no deterrent to U.S. involvement in the internal affairs of
those nations.

    Among those things mentioned as requiring "conflict short of war" is
"peace enforcement" and the ability to protect American lives anywhere in
the world by keeping very close electronic tabs on their whereabouts and
activities. An equally portentous claim, however, is that "behavior
modification is a key component of peace enforcement." As outlined in two
previous WINDS articles, the United States' doctrine of "behavior
modification" as taught to leaders of third world nations has previously
included instruction on terrorizing or even torturing those whose behavior
the U.S. desired to modify. (See America's School of Death and Whoare the
Real Terrorists? ). Behavior modification, by practical U.S. definition,
encompasses everything from inducing a slight change in ideas to having no
behavior at all. The latter is commonly referred to as death.

                          WE WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU

    Where do these new surveillance and tracking techniques enter into the
Strategic Studies presentation? Their publication discusses contingencies
in dealing with threats to Americans, especially nonmilitary personnel,
during heightened international tensions and times of impending conflict,
including hostage-taking possibilities. In cases where civilian personnel
could be potentially involved in a Noncombatant Evacuation Operation (NEO)
or hostage-taking crisis, plans have been proposed for the tracking and
identification of "victims".

    Supposedly under the category of "only to be used voluntarily":

        "In the near future every American at risk could be equipped
     with an electronic individual position locator device (IPLD). The
     device, derived from the electronic bracelet used to control some
     criminal offenders or parolees, would continuously inform a
     central data bank of the individuals' locations. Eventually such
     a device could be permanently implanted under the skin, with
     automatic remote activation either upon departure from U.S.
     territory (while passing through the security screening system at
     the airport, for example) or by transmission of a NEO alert code
     to areas of conflict. Implantation would help preclude removal of
     the device (although, of course, some terrorists might be willing
     to remove a portion of the hostage's body if they knew where the
     device was implanted). The IPLD could also act as a form of IFFN
     (identification friend, foe or neutral) if U.S. military
     personnel were equipped with appropriate challenge/response
     devices. Finally, such a device might eventually serve, like Dick
     Tracy's wrist radio, as a two-way communication channel
     permitting the NEO notification to be done covertly." (See
     footnote on the Mark of the Beast under SUGGESTED READING).

                      MASTERS OF SLIDING DEFINITIONS

    With a government whose dictionary is so fluid as to take the shape of
whatever container into which it is placed, does it not become obvious that
the re-definition of words has become a political art? Alternate
interpretations of certain words is apparently all that is required to
rationalize the use of any technology, in any manner, and upon whomever the
government chooses. Could not the term "at risk" in the above quotation be
just as easily transfigured to mean anyone having a "bad hair day"? Is it
not, after all, politicians and the government they run that have given us
the extensive use of sliding definitions?

    The following questions raised by the authors themselves within the SSI
publication would seem to be worthy of careful consideration by those who
entertain their own questions about the use that would be made of such
technology by an out-of-control intelligence community:

     "...The individual position locator raises several thorny issues:

        * Would Americans overseas be forced to wear (or have
          implanted) such a device or would its use be voluntary?
        * If forced, would it apply equally to those employed overseas
          and tourists? [This, of course, could never conceivably
          include involuntary domestic surveillance].
        * Will Americans accept the fact that the government might, by
          access to the NEO locator database, know every move they
          make?
        * If a locator device could be remotely activated, how could
          Americans be sure that activation was only effective outside
          the United States?
        * How would they know that 'wrist radios' were not used to
          monitor personal conversations?"

    In an apparent attempt at candor the RMA document actually appears to
express a desire to curry favorable public opinion by their responsible and
thoughtful consideration of American sensibilities to such matters. Rather
than abandon the potential control over U.S. citizens that such advanced
technological methods would give them, they would, it seems, prefer to
obtain public approval for the use of their wonderful Orwellian toys.

    In a further revelation of surveillance techniques available to the
government the SSI discusses "the second emerging technology with direct
application in NEOs...the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). UAV's will be able
to conduct rapid reconnaissance....As demonstrated by Israel, UAV's can
also play a significant role '...a remotely piloted plane followed a car
carrying fleeing terrorists back to their base, so that it could
subsequently be demolished by air attack.'"

                                THEY WILL ALTAR PUBLIC PERCEPTION

    The military, this little booklet infers, is working on the development
of the "aerial capability to broadcast and alter television signals." They
claim that electronic manipulation of such signals would "remove a key and
essential weapon from the terrorist arsenal--media coverage." This
technology would give them the power to create any illusion they desire
about anyone they choose--and make it appear as if that person himself is
doing it. The authors imply that by the use of such technology for
"domestic applications" they could manipulate TV broadcasts in such a way
as to create great "public skepticism regarding television appearances...."
Claiming that television is "one of the American politician's greatest
communication tools", they lament the fact that such artificial
manipulation would likely reduce the impact politicians could have on
public opinion. This latter consideration amazingly was presented as an
undesirable effect of the technology.

    In further reference to "bugging" or surveying the population, the
Strategic Studies Institute claims that "new computer software...could
'quickly discover and expose critical associations that would otherwise go
undetected'"--that is, as a result of these surveillance techniques they
can very efficiently find out with whom an individual is associating and
why. And what "sliding definition" can here be applied to "critical
associations"?

    "Deception, while frequently of great military or political value," the
document continues, "is thought of as somehow 'un-American.'" The question
here is begged; by whom is it considered "un-American"? especially
considering the results of a national poll published by Prentice Hall, New
York, N.Y. 1991, entitledThe Day America Told the Truth (also see The WINDS
article, "The Invisible Hand". In that poll it is revealed that "91% of us
lie regularly....The majority of us find it hard to get through a single
week without lying. One in five can't make it through a single day--and we
are talking about conscious, premeditated lies....Lying has become a
cultural trait in America...embedded in our national character. Americans
lie about everything -- and usually for no good reason." Does this
revelation perhaps make it more accurate to say that telling the truth "is
thought of as somehow "un-American?"

    More commentary is contained within the little RMA publication about
this nation's value system:

     "American values also make the use of directed energy weapons
     against suspected narcotrafficking aircraft technologically
     feasible but morally difficult, perhaps unacceptable."

    A "directed energy weapon," the SSI document explains, is a device
capable of totally disabling an aircraft's navigational and even its
electrical system, without physically touching it, thereby virtually
assuring a crash.

     "The advantage of directed energy weapons over conventional ones
     is deniability [no bullet holes--the plane just fell out of the
     sky]. Against whom is such deniability aimed? Certainly not the
     narcotraffickers, who [are most likely dead or] will quickly
     recognize that interception by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
     of military planes leads to loss of their aircraft. Instead,
     deniability must be aimed at the American people, who do not
     sanction the imprisonment, much less execution, of individuals
     without a trial (and execution is how they will perceive it--the
     argument 'we only disabled the aircraft, it was the crash which
     killed the pilot' will carry little weight)....The American
     public may perceive the DEA or military involved in such actions
     to be as bad or worse than the narcotraffickers."

                     THEY MUST CHANGE AMERICAN ETHICS

    The authors conclude their presentation of what would or would not be
considered moral by U.S. citizens by indicating that, "American values and
attitudes thus form significant constraints on full use of emerging
technology, at least in anything short of a perceived war for national
survival. Overcoming these constraints to [engage] in conflict short of war
would require fundamental changes in the United States--an ethical and
political revolution may be necessary to make a military revolution."

    Question: how and by whom will this "ethical and political revolution"
be created and implemented?

    Reference is also made to "spiritual insurgents attempting to forge new
systems of identity and personal meaning" within the U.S. From past
experience it has been shown how blurred become the issues when the
government and the individual separately define freedom of religion. It has
been made, of late, an extremely mobile goal post whose position changes,
not at the authority of the Constitution, but of those who consistently
disregard it.

   During this discussion of military operations "short of war", could not
one quite reasonably substitute for the word "terrorist" any individual or
group of whom the U.S. government disapproves?

                      A NEW METHOD OF ASSET FORFEITURE
               Electronically Reduce the Bank Balance to Zero

    Narcotraffickers, the SSI document claims,

     "are even more likely than terrorists to rely on radios, cellular
     telephones, fax machines, and computers. This greatly increases
     their vulnerability to electronic intelligence gathering and
     disruption. For example, remote intrusive monitoring of the
     financial computer networks of offshore banks [read that: any
     banks] could identify the deposits associated with money
     laundering. If desired, such accounts could be electronically
     emptied."

    Translation: any American can have his bank account reduced to zero
under any pretext or "sliding definition" of any imaginary offense
governmental authorities care to manufacture. How is this congruent, one
could ask, with the fifth amendment's clause of "due process"? One
seemingly need only be suspected of a crime to forfeit possessions or
money. The previous claim about electronic methods of seizing the assets of
individuals never given "due process" seems to contrast with this nation's
attitude towards others when they play our game against us.

     "Electronic terrorism--the sabotage of communications and
     computer systems in retaliation for official policy [of stealing
     other's assets?]--will also be a tool of our enemies....As a
     National Security Decision Directive signed by President Bush
     noted, 'Telecommunications and information processing systems are
     highly susceptible to interception, unauthorized access, and
     related forms of technical exploitation....The technology to
     exploit these electronic systems is widespread and is used
     extensively by foreign nations and can be employed, as well, by
     terrorist groups....'"

    Metz and Kievit quote Martin C. Libicki from his book on electronic
surveillance entitled,The Mesh and the Net in which Libicki makes reference
to a military capable of collecting "more and more data about a battlefield
[any field?], knitting a finer and finer mesh which can catch smaller and
stealthier objects" and could "pinpoint intruders into U.S. territory."--or
anyone, citizen or not, who would be "illegally" traveling within areas of
the U.S.

    As to developments for "peace keeping" operations, "advances in
electronics and robotics could also prove useful in peace operations,
allowing commanders to separate forces with a 'no man's land' populated by
remote sensing devices or robotic patrols and enforced with stand-off
precision strike weapons, thus reducing peace keeper casualties and
improving the chances that the peace keeping force will remain long enough
for a political resolution of the conflict." Mindless machines will
apparently be slated to perform the indiscriminate killing now conducted by
"peace keeping operations". One defense consultant interviewed on the
television documentary series "Fields of Armor" claimed that a battlefield
or restriction sector ("no-man's land") addressed by such technology would
be rendered as "uninhabitable as a nuclear strike zone".

    Recalling that this portion ofRevolution in Military Affairs and
Conflict Short of War is a future tense fictional scenario, the document
appears to regress to the "past" when describing an ongoing problem with
American involvement in world politics. The embroiling of U.S. forces in
the affairs of foreign nations and "horrific ethnic struggles...usually
began as part of a multinational peace keeping or peace enforcement
operation, but rapidly turned violent when American forces were killed or
held hostage....On the ground, enemies would not directly fight our
magnificent military forces, but relied instead on mines, assassination,
and terror bombings."

                               ISOLATIONISTS
        (Those Who Believe Americans Should Mind Their Own Business)

    This not only sounds as if the U.S. did not learn anything from the
Vietnam "conflict", it appears that they don't plan on it until forced to
do so by inevitable circumstances.

     "The costs of these imbroglios were immense. A bitter dispute
     broke out in the United States between supporters of
     multinational peace operations and isolationists."

    This seems to indicate that the authors of this war game of the mind
have some awareness that certain segments of the American population, those
they refer to as "isolationists", are informed of historical precedent and
unwilling to repeat its errors.

     "...Domestic political acrimony was not the only long-term cost
     of these operations: many of our troops assigned to operations in
     tropical areas brought back new resilient diseases which then
     gained a foothold in the United States. Debate was fierce over
     the new law requiring long-term quarantine of troops returning
     from Third World operations."

    Was this not the action of the former Soviet Union when they refused to
allow their soldiers to return from foreign lands?--different
circumstances; same result.

    The U.S. seems to be like a bear that keeps poking its nose into a
hornet's nest. It knows that the insects don't produce honey, it just
apparently likes getting stung. Why does this country continue to raid the
nests of others--continue to interfere in the affairs of other nations? Is
it because of deep humanitarian concerns for the welfare of the citizens of
those sovereign nations? Ask the estimated 4,000 victims of the raid on
Panama, intended to extract a single "drug dealer" (remember? Operation
Just Cause?); or the 500,000 Iraqi children that have starved to death
because of UN sanctions. Nope; can't do that--they're dead--a result that
seems to consistently follow U.S. involvement in "peace keeping" operations
everywhere. Can a child or mother or father discern the difference between
the bullet that kills them, whether it emerges from the muzzle of an
enemy's weapon or from the righteous weapon of someone who is concerned for
their welfare?

                            IT'S ALL ON PURPOSE

    It appears valid at this juncture to propose a series of rhetorical
questions: do those running the United States political/military machinery
have any awareness of the laws of cause and effect? Do those individuals
comprising that machinery, those soldiers whose lives are moved about as
pawns at the whim of the political strategists, have any spiritual power
left to assume responsibility for their own actions? Or have they become as
the Protocols label them--the "mindless masses" abdicating their powers of
conscience to their masters as was heard so frequently at Nuremberg? That
same document that affixes the label "mindless masses" proclaims that,

     "The intensification of military armaments and the increase of
     police forces are all essential for the completion of [our]
     plans. The end result which we seek is that in all nations of the
     world there should, other than ourselves, be only the masses of
     the common worker, a few millionaires devoted to our interests,
     police and soldiers."

    In order to create this money-driven police state, they must
manufacture a justification for those police and soldiers. Americans,
especially, would not accept such an authoritarian situation without the
alternative being far worse--without the disease being more undesirable
than the cure--they think. The method for bringing about this modernized
adaptation of martial law is clearly stated in the same vilified document:

     "We must create upheavals, discords and open hostility. By this
     we shall gain a double advantage. First off, we will be able to
     keep all countries under our control. They will submit to this
     control because they well know that we have the power to create
     disorders or to restore order whenever we like." (ibid).

     The purpose for this is, of course, to:

   * Habituate the public into accepting this country's role as the natural
     leader in world "peace" operations because it is, after all, the only
     remaining super power--and a "kind and benevolent" one at that.
   * Create such an intense national weariness at the continual conflict,
     especially that which will take place within America's own borders, as
     to cause U.S. citizens to accept nearly any apparently viable
     remedy--whatever the cost in personal liberties.
   * To destroy all nationalism in the minds of Americans by creating such
     crises as to make them surrender not only their guns, for the sake of
     increased security, but their liberties as well.

    Nationalism, specifically in this country, is targeted by the
globalists because it is possibly the greatest known barrier to the powers
steering the New World Order. Is this nation, because of the impotence of
being too large and too powerful, in danger of becoming as Richard Nixon
warned, a "poor, pitiful giant"?--a "victim" of its own cause and effect
proceeding forth from its own political policies? Does it not appear that
that is precisely the desire of those shepherding this country over the
precipice of national ruin?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUGGESTED READING:

   Many fundamentalist Christians have long believed that such an
"electronic leash" fulfills the scriptural prophesy of Revelation 13:18.
Enlightening information on this subject can be found in a WINDS
publication entitledShillum, in chapter four, under the heading "The Mark
of the Beast."

"The New System's War Against Civilians"--concerning the developing
technology of "non-lethal weapons."

Parent Training of Children Axed by NII- -An article about the National
Information Infrastructure.

                   --------------------------------------

                               Top of Article

                        [Main Page] * [Next Article]

                               [WINDS Logo]

                           Copyright  1997, The
                        WINDS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
                          http://www.TheWinds.org
                             Contact The WINDS
                                webmaster.
