global surveillance


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.


    "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 Who are 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.


    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).


    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:

    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.'"

secret eyes watching


    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, entitled The Day America Told the Truth (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."


    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?


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 of Revolution 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."


(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 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:

    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?



   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 entitled Shillum 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.

Written 10/06/97


The WINDS Main Page

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This page is in the public domain.

Go to Top