Showing posts with label counter terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label counter terrorism. Show all posts
2/21/2012
Terror comes to Suburbia
This is a fascinating video, not so much for it's content as it's implications as they relate to the popular mind. OPSGEAR is a company that targets "tactical training" products to a civilian and law enforcement audience. I suspect their bread and butter customers are the suburban "tactical" minded middle class American male (who is increasingly unaffiliated with military or law enforcement). What is interesting about these sorts of companies and their unique training products is the fact that they are duel use, that is this training can serve both terror and counter terrorism operations.
Perhaps no greater practical joke can be orchestrated than blowing a door off it's hinges, shooting standing persons with 12 gauge baton rounds, hog tying and placing of zip tie restraints, and being secreted away a la extraordinary rendition style. Who are these men with guns? Who are the men in the room and why must one be taken away in so secure manner?
Terrorism and the war on terror in suburbia is nothing new. Suburban life in the US is stultifying for the youth who seek, through acts of mild terror, adventure as a means to escape the terror of perpetual and unremitting boredom. What is new is the influx of law enforcement style weapons and tactics into the suburban mind. For the "training up" of our suburban youth in this matter we have the internet to thank.
Doubtless we will evolve as a society in the US to one which tolerates the near daily use of drone strikes on US citizens inside US territory. The causalities will be light compared to casualties suffered by civilian populations in previous wars, like WWII for example. The end goal, which is to terrorize the population, remains the same. The only difference is that the US government, under the auspices of defeating terrorism by "targeted killing", is in reality organizing a type of technological terror on the body politic.
Watch "OPSGEAR® Commercial "Get your own Bala" RAID" on YouTube
Perhaps no greater practical joke can be orchestrated than blowing a door off it's hinges, shooting standing persons with 12 gauge baton rounds, hog tying and placing of zip tie restraints, and being secreted away a la extraordinary rendition style. Who are these men with guns? Who are the men in the room and why must one be taken away in so secure manner?
Terrorism and the war on terror in suburbia is nothing new. Suburban life in the US is stultifying for the youth who seek, through acts of mild terror, adventure as a means to escape the terror of perpetual and unremitting boredom. What is new is the influx of law enforcement style weapons and tactics into the suburban mind. For the "training up" of our suburban youth in this matter we have the internet to thank.
Doubtless we will evolve as a society in the US to one which tolerates the near daily use of drone strikes on US citizens inside US territory. The causalities will be light compared to casualties suffered by civilian populations in previous wars, like WWII for example. The end goal, which is to terrorize the population, remains the same. The only difference is that the US government, under the auspices of defeating terrorism by "targeted killing", is in reality organizing a type of technological terror on the body politic.
Watch "OPSGEAR® Commercial "Get your own Bala" RAID" on YouTube
2/06/2012
Best Practices when dealing with unorthodox hostage situations?
Recall this strange incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Douglas_Wells
Reading Schneier on Security blog one commentator posted this response:
"So the cops handcuffed this guy and leaned him up against a cruiser and then hid behind stuff and watched him struggle to extricate him self from the handcuffs while waiting for him to blow up? Wow, hope I never get help like that. They should have poured honey on him to attract ants as well.
They could at least have put some earplugs in his ears and tucked a folded flak vest between his chest and the bomb to give him a shot at surviving before they buggered off, just in case he actually was an innocent victim."
Indeed! That does seem like the optimally decent thing to do. Although such incidences are rare, and more likely to be hoaxes than not, first responders need to engage with potential victims by assuming they are victims and then from that point trying to minimize the harm caused by any IED type object attached to said victim(s), assuring the safety of bystanders.
BUT WAIT! Is this really best practice for LEO and other first responders? The Israeli government has already worked out through extensive experience the best practices in these situations which, we are calling for lack of better term "unorthodox hostage situations." So we should defer to their treatment of the subject matter.
The Israel Government's response is to assume that anyone with a bomb is a suicide bomber, and not a victim of a so-called "collar bomb" or other device. Therefore they tend to shoot on sight any such person when and where shooting them would not incur a greater risk of loss of life, etc. How that gets trained for in Israel is something difficult to uncover through an Internet search increasingly due to the securitization of counter-terrorism best practices. Securitization means information that was previously "open source" and "public knowledge" is increasingly being withdrawn behind firewalls ostensibly to deny potential enemies "access to operational knowledge and capabilities."
Perhaps the Russian CT units ROE in the Belsan Seige and the Moscow Theater hostage crises are also instructive here?
So what to do?
Again, Schneier's commentors comes through:
"Sounds like the cops did their job. If there's nothing you can do, nothing is a good thing to do. Getting someone killed because they play EOD-like-in-the-movies and start cutting wires at random is not going to solve anything for anyone. Getting the hell out of the way and waiting for the people who know what they're doing is a smart move.
BUT WAIT! Is this really best practice for LEO and other first responders? The Israeli government has already worked out through extensive experience the best practices in these situations which, we are calling for lack of better term "unorthodox hostage situations." So we should defer to their treatment of the subject matter.
The Israel Government's response is to assume that anyone with a bomb is a suicide bomber, and not a victim of a so-called "collar bomb" or other device. Therefore they tend to shoot on sight any such person when and where shooting them would not incur a greater risk of loss of life, etc. How that gets trained for in Israel is something difficult to uncover through an Internet search increasingly due to the securitization of counter-terrorism best practices. Securitization means information that was previously "open source" and "public knowledge" is increasingly being withdrawn behind firewalls ostensibly to deny potential enemies "access to operational knowledge and capabilities."
Perhaps the Russian CT units ROE in the Belsan Seige and the Moscow Theater hostage crises are also instructive here?
So what to do?
Again, Schneier's commentors comes through:
"Sounds like the cops did their job. If there's nothing you can do, nothing is a good thing to do. Getting someone killed because they play EOD-like-in-the-movies and start cutting wires at random is not going to solve anything for anyone. Getting the hell out of the way and waiting for the people who know what they're doing is a smart move.
Danish police did the same thing last year when a would-be terrorist managed to fsck up and set off his bomb while he was working on it (it was TATP so not too surprising). He got away from the scene and was found later in a nearby park, wearing a belt pouch. They cuffed him and stood off a bit, just in case, as letting him bleed on the pavement was better than risking having extra casualties (a brave doctor in a flak jacket had a look at him and pronounced him fit to wait). EOD eventually got there and found out that there was no risk but it was a smart move regardless. Link: http://eb.dk/112/article1408238.ece,in Danish but there's an amateur recording of the goings on in the park.
Oh, and that bomber had more luck than he deserved. When it went boom he was disassembling his first bomb and making it into a letter bomb, with a handfull of ball bearings thrown in, in a small room. Getting away with scratches is damn lucky.
Posted by: grumpy at December 29, 2011 6:01 AM"
Lessons From Israel in Thinking About the Unthinkable
By Ori Nir
Published January 24, 2003, issue of January 24, 2003.
"Protocols based on Israel’s experience with suicide bombings have been prepared for the LAPD, with other police forces around the nation following suit. Instructions on dealing with suicide bombings are a part of the LAPD Supervisor School curriculum and recruit training; security tactics for guarding high-profile VIP events are following Israeli police techniques, and Israeli public-awareness initiatives on suicide bombers are serving as a model for similar programs in the United States.
Morten’s initial goal was to use the lessons he learned to prepare police officers and firefighters in Los Angeles to handle such bombings. Due to nationwide interest in suicide bombings among law-enforcement agencies, Morten has become a traveling teacher of sorts, sharing his lessons with approximately 5,000 police, military and fire-fighting personnel around the country.
Although he’s the most visible American law-enforcement student of Israel’s suicide-bombing response tactics, Morten is not the only one, said Marsha Halteman, director of corporate and community programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in Washington, which arranged a meeting with Morten and a small group of reporters recently. Dozens of American police, intelligence and medical personnel have visited Israel, particularly following the September 11 attacks, to learn how to handle suicide bombings.
“Everybody is interested in this information,” said Morten, who devised a set of guidelines for first-responders — police officers, firefighters and paramedics — on handling a suicide-bombing crime-scene. “We are trying to get this information to whoever wants to know and needs to know, and we encourage them to use these lessons.” The LAPD now has plans to train all of its 9,000 officers in handling suicide bombings — a process that would be completed within three to four months, Morten said."
Terrorist/Revolutionary Literature and the FBI Orwellian Police State paranoia
Fascinating document posted on the always interesting public intelligence.
Notable for it's mention of Peroxides. Electronics.
Peroxides b/c TATP which has been blogged about elsewhere, perhaps even on Schnieder on Security?
Give it a look and see?
http://www.schneier.com/
Also timers and RF, electronics? The whole planet is filling up with consumer electronics and increasingly agile mobile devices. Should this technology be somehow alien to the consumer? Is a consumer of electronics curiosity about these electronics to be suspect?
ALSO:
It closes with this:
"Some of the activities, taken individually,
could be innocent and must be examined by
law enforcement professionals in a larger
context to determine whether there is a basis
to investigate. The activities outlined on this
handout are by no means
all-inclusive but have been compiled from a
review of terrorist events over several years."
"and must be examined by
law enforcement professionals in a larger
context to determine whether there is a basis
to investigate."
-----> What is the nature of this "investigation" and is the usual legal process of getting a warrant pursued? What about notice of the individual being investigated?
THE FINE PRINT....
Notice the fine print: "
This project was supported by Grant Number 2007-MU-BX-K002, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Each indictor listed above, is by
itself, lawful conduct or behavior and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In addition, there may be a wholly innocent explanation for conduct or behavior that
appears suspicious in nature. For this reason, no single indicator should be the sole basis for law enforcement action. The totality of behavioral indicators and other relevant circumstances should be
evaluated when considering any law enforcement response or action."
---->"Each indictor listed above, is by
itself, lawful conduct or behavior and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."
---->"In addition, there may be a wholly innocent explanation for conduct or behavior that
appears suspicious in nature."
---->"The totality of behavioral indicators and other relevant circumstances should be
evaluated when considering any law enforcement response or action."
This last comment is disturbing. It almost seems like an axiomatic statement of intent? Who is going to decide what the "totality of behavioral indicators" are? What is a behavioral indicator for that matter? Who will do this evaluation? Are computers already deciding these things and then pushing red flagged data streams further up the chain of command in some FBI signals intercept and analysis operation? We as American citizens do not know the answers to these questions even though we have been asking for some time. The system is silent in regards to details about the way in which intelligence data is handled. And that lack of transparency is unconstitutional, insofar as it infringes upon the liberty of the individual without due process protections, etc.
http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SuspiciousActivity/Internet_Cafe.pdf
Brought to us by the FBI and the BJA
Document titled "Defending Communities against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Cafes"
Asks: WHAT SHOULD I CONSIDER SUSPICIOUS?
People Who:
Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of
others
Always pay cash or use credit card(s) in different name(s)
Apparently use tradecraft: lookout, blocker or someone to distract employees
Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities
Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones
Travel illogical distance to use Internet Café
Activities on Computer indicate:
Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL,
etc.)
Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address
Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc.
Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc.
Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game
Download or transfer files with “how-to” content such as:
- Content of extreme/radical nature with violent themes
- Anarchist Cookbook, explosives or weapons information
- Military tactics, equipment manuals, chemical or biological information
- Terrorist/revolutionary literature
- Preoccupation with press coverage of terrorist attacks
- Defensive tactics, police or government information
- Information about timers, electronics, or remote transmitters / receivers
Notable for it's mention of Peroxides. Electronics.
Peroxides b/c TATP which has been blogged about elsewhere, perhaps even on Schnieder on Security?
Give it a look and see?
http://www.schneier.com/
Also timers and RF, electronics? The whole planet is filling up with consumer electronics and increasingly agile mobile devices. Should this technology be somehow alien to the consumer? Is a consumer of electronics curiosity about these electronics to be suspect?
ALSO:
It closes with this:
"Some of the activities, taken individually,
could be innocent and must be examined by
law enforcement professionals in a larger
context to determine whether there is a basis
to investigate. The activities outlined on this
handout are by no means
all-inclusive but have been compiled from a
review of terrorist events over several years."
"and must be examined by
law enforcement professionals in a larger
context to determine whether there is a basis
to investigate."
-----> What is the nature of this "investigation" and is the usual legal process of getting a warrant pursued? What about notice of the individual being investigated?
THE FINE PRINT....
Notice the fine print: "
This project was supported by Grant Number 2007-MU-BX-K002, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Each indictor listed above, is by
itself, lawful conduct or behavior and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In addition, there may be a wholly innocent explanation for conduct or behavior that
appears suspicious in nature. For this reason, no single indicator should be the sole basis for law enforcement action. The totality of behavioral indicators and other relevant circumstances should be
evaluated when considering any law enforcement response or action."
---->"Each indictor listed above, is by
itself, lawful conduct or behavior and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."
---->"In addition, there may be a wholly innocent explanation for conduct or behavior that
appears suspicious in nature."
---->"The totality of behavioral indicators and other relevant circumstances should be
evaluated when considering any law enforcement response or action."
This last comment is disturbing. It almost seems like an axiomatic statement of intent? Who is going to decide what the "totality of behavioral indicators" are? What is a behavioral indicator for that matter? Who will do this evaluation? Are computers already deciding these things and then pushing red flagged data streams further up the chain of command in some FBI signals intercept and analysis operation? We as American citizens do not know the answers to these questions even though we have been asking for some time. The system is silent in regards to details about the way in which intelligence data is handled. And that lack of transparency is unconstitutional, insofar as it infringes upon the liberty of the individual without due process protections, etc.
http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SuspiciousActivity/Internet_Cafe.pdf
Brought to us by the FBI and the BJA
Document titled "Defending Communities against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Cafes"
Asks: WHAT SHOULD I CONSIDER SUSPICIOUS?
People Who:
Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of
others
Always pay cash or use credit card(s) in different name(s)
Apparently use tradecraft: lookout, blocker or someone to distract employees
Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities
Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones
Travel illogical distance to use Internet Café
Activities on Computer indicate:
Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL,
etc.)
Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address
Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc.
Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc.
Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game
Download or transfer files with “how-to” content such as:
- Content of extreme/radical nature with violent themes
- Anarchist Cookbook, explosives or weapons information
- Military tactics, equipment manuals, chemical or biological information
- Terrorist/revolutionary literature
- Preoccupation with press coverage of terrorist attacks
- Defensive tactics, police or government information
- Information about timers, electronics, or remote transmitters / receivers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)