This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
In order to substantiate knowledge of such practices I have quoted information from relevant documents and presentations made by the Ministry of Defence. The document most repeatedly mentioned is 'JWP 3-80 Information Operations'. I gather it was produced in 2003. It is a difficult item to dissect because it often goes to some length to avoid being explicit, and it says things in such a way as to be hard to understand for the uninitiated. The MOD is currently working in order to replace it with new documentation. Based on a recent response from MOD, it appears that one of the reasons is to take some of the information such as the target lists (people) behind closed doors. (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/132287/response/361769/attach/html/3/Mackenzie %20Q%20155824.doc.html) By claiming that JWP 3-80 has been superseded and is no longer active, this could help evade dealing with matters which I will address here. Most of the remaining documents are by MOD employees who are employed by or work closely with the Cyber and Influence department of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL). DSTL works with a large budget and around 4000 staff. The quotes taken from these items helps give an idea of how the MOD approaches targeting in the UK and that they apply an outlook that is used in war zones across the board. To begin with, Jonathan Lyle is in charge of DSTL and he gave the following quotes for an official interview: “Dstl is a trading fund of the MOD. We exist to maximise the impact of science and technology for UK defence and security. We work with the best people and the best ideas in the world. Working with both large and small companies and with universities we develop battle-winning technologies.” “We provide support to UK operations both now and in the future” “We have priorities set for us by PJHQ (MOD's Permanent Joint Headquarters). Our scientists in theatre have a 24-hour reach-back service to Dstl and to our suppliers in industry and in universities. The scientist says ‘I have a problem’ and this intellectual network is harnessed to hand back advice quickly.” (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dstl-working-with-the-best-ideas-in-the-world) DSTL is one of many organisations which Info-Ops tap expertise from. Others include multiple space organisations, private defence companies like Qinetiq, Thales, Finnmeccanica etc. as well as other countries. Most actions carried out in Info-Ops Targeting seem to be classified as 'Influence Activities.' To quote from page 2-6 of Joint Warfare Publication 3-80 on Information Operations: (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29082117/jwp3-80) 'Info Ops staff will make use of tools to Influence Will and will
affect those capabilities that allow will to be translated into action. These are discussed in more detail at Annex 2A. Info Ops must not be limited to these means but is constrained only by imagination and the availability of resources. A. Influence Activity. Actions to influence will traditionally make use of tools such as Psychological Operations (PSYOPS), Deception, Electronic Warfare (EW), specifically targeted physical destruction and Computer Network Operations (CNO), which incorporates attack, exploitation and defence. ' B. Counter Command Activity. Actions to affect capability can make use of any appropriate tools however they will commonly resort to specifically targeted physical destruction, the use of emerging technology, offensive EW and CNO. ' As quoted, Annex 2A (section 8) is indeed entitled 'Emerging Technology' and the first sentence and only reference in it to the equipment used says: 'Emerging Technology includes the use of directed energy weapons such as Radio Frequency, Laser, and acoustic and other non lethal weapons.' For those who might be unfamiliar with such terms. Directed energy weapons are devices which focus radiation at people and technology. So what the document is saying is that radiating people is key to achieving their objectives. Although I do not know the full extent of MOD capability in this regard, such weapons are known to include space based military capability satellites of which there are thousands when pooled with other allies. Page 56 of the American Air Force Research Laboratory Technology Milestones Volume 14 states: 'Emerging Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) offer virtually instant fly-out time, stealth, precise targeting, agile re-targeting capability, operation unaffected by gravity, and lethal/less-lethal options.' (www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121001-034.pdf) The beam range on such modern satellites is known to extend from their normal operational orbit to anywhere on earth that can be seen by it, so to speak, as energy is directed in line of sight. Furthermore, page 3-4 refers to the two 'key methods for achieving objectives' (for a campaign) as being: (1) Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) (2) Electronic Warfare(EW).
The Autonomy of Information Operations
On page 3-4 of JWP 3-80 the documentation references the in-house responsibility taken for assimilating target lists. Under 'Information Operations Contribution to the Campaign Plan' it states: 'Info Ops staff will be responsible for providing the following elements as part of the Campaign Plan............... C. Details on processes such as: co-ordination measures, Info Ops target nomination procedures, nominations for inclusion in the Restricted Target List (RTL) and Joint Restricted Frequency List (JRFL), clearance and authorization requirements for themes and messages and measurements of effectiveness will be included.......' Page 4-3 of JWP 3-80 includes the following text on 'Clearance and Authorisation': 'The scale, tempo and sensitivity of operations will determine the level of ministerial involvement in the procedure for targeting and Info Ops with, where possible, target packages (or entire target lists) and intended themes being submitted for clearance in advance of operations. Ideally, 'silence procedures' should be used wherever possible.' These are examples of how the MOD takes responsibility for it's own activities and it's target lists are self set. It avoids exposure of these and related activities by being selective about what they choose to reveal and using 'silence procedures' where ministers become inquisitive. Page 3-4 continues by saying: E. The desired Influence Activity objectives, themes, messages and tasks will be listed in the 'Info Ops objectives matrix' along with the CCA objectives and tasks........These tasks will then be submitted for inclusion in the Joint Integrated Prioritised Target List (JIPTL) to ensure coherence between Info Ops and broader military activity. Info Ops staff (JTFC) will also contribute to other annexes of the Campaign Plan such as targeting, media ops and CIMIC.' Later on page 4-1 in Chapter 4 – Execution, it states that the JTFC 'gives targeting guidance, approves the draft Joint Integrated Prioritised Target List (JIPTL) and authorizes the Target Nomination List (TNL) and Joint Restricted Frequency List (JRFL).' In November 2009 the head of Cyber and Influence at DSTL, David Ferbrache produced a presentation as an introduction to Cyber and Influence. On the last page summary he makes reference to Targeting, mentioning the 'self selection of targets' and 'personalisation of messages' directed at these targets within operations. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/128168751/) At the same time the Team Leader for the Influence section of C&I at DSTL Porton Down, psychologist George Brander produced a presentation titled 'Understanding and Influencing in Cyberspace'.
On page 5 he includes a diagram displaying the fact that the 'technology' used to influence people causes direct 'physical', 'psychological' and 'perceptual' effects. It outlines that these feed into each other also and that the effects upon a person are used to inform the targeting strategy. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/110556843/) On page 6 he outlines some of the effects on someone under the categories just mentioned. I have extracted the ones which I believe relate to domestic targeting: “Physical-Destruction, Denial, Disruption Psychological- Shock & Surprise, Fear and Panic, Stress and Trauma, Feelings of Hopelessness, Feelings of Helplessness.....Alienation, Denial, Loss of Face, effects on Social Interactions, Habituation, Group Participation. Perception-I'm not safe, I'm being watched, Self Doubt/Realisation, I'm not in control, They mean business, Loss of Normality, Difficulties in Achieving Goals (impediments), I'm being victimized, something has/has not happened. It is clear that these are the effects of attacking normal people. These are not the effects on a criminal when a legitimate covert operation happens to be spotted by accident. These are effects on an average joe when an operation turns their life upside down. The objectives of such campaigns seem to follow a clear chain; Victimize, Ostracise, Neutralize. If there was any doubt as to the misuse of the technology, on page 10 Brander restates British defence doctrine that 'Influence Activities' “affect the character and behaviour of an individual, group or organisation: they realise cognitive effects.” And within JWP 3-80 Electronic Warfare is characterized as an Influence Activity.
Information Operations Targeting Overview
Page 1-2 of JWP 3-80 talks at some length about the purposes of various Info Ops as parts of wider campaigns and the need for 'the message put out by UK Government' to be the 'intended message', in order to influence the targeted decision-maker. It refers to the campaign as being a 'cross-government activity' which also utilizes NGOs including businesses. It states that the Information Campaign starts with 'government policy', before quickly stating that what that is is 'the desired outcome of a crisis'. At best this information seems contradictory. They try to paint a picture of separate agendas being reconciled. But I have seen no information that the government has any involvement in who gets targeted in the UK, and the MOD make their own lists. All of the responsibilities for the activities of targeting seem to be decided upon in house by the relevant MOD departments. And the targeting of British citizens is not a crisis for the government or the MOD, it is a crisis for the people being targeted. Page 1-3 of JWP 3-80 states that the MOD's 'contribution to the info-campaign...comprises the co-ordinated use of all or any military capability in order to influence audiences (at any level) and prevent them from imposing their will.'
I believe that this is true and that the scope that MOD will apply to targeting audiences is limited only by the extent of what they think they can get away with. I also believe that their indication of targeting people at 'any level' is accurate. It is undemocratic and illegal, but accurate. The footnote paragraph states: '6-Audiences include decision-makers (political and other leaders and military commanders), influential individuals, military personnel, armed factions and specific population groups (eg. ethnic, cultural, religious and political). They may be adversaries, the uncommitted or allied and coalition partners.' Though the wording is indicative of Info-Ops surrounding efforts in open wars; certain words underline the extent of activity in the UK also. The last sentence reference to the 'adversaries, the uncommitted and allied' is a clear picture of the outlook taken and breadth of people the MOD seek to 'Influence'. Those surrounding a target can and often do become targets themselves. This includes using the typical types of warfare (information, psychological, electronic) used on the primary target. If someone does not fit with their agenda then they are likely to end up on a list themselves. Inside the UK or otherwise, at any level. Page 2-4 (media quote) states that: 'The primary purpose of Media Ops is to communicate information to audiences, through the medium of international media....They are an integral part of any military operation. Although Media Ops is primarily focused on the need to maintain domestic public support and hence freedom of action, it's impact is much wider.' On page 2-6 of JWP 3-80 it states that: The 'Joint Task Force Commander'(JTFC) ensures that Info-Ops activity is incorporated into the targeting process, co-ordinated and deconflicted with other activity and that assets are apportioned as required.' This statement indicates the known at this point in that Information Operations and targeting are intrinsically fused. Page 1-1 of JWP 3-80 states: 'Inter-state conflicts.........are increasingly being replaced by intra-state conflicts, or asymmetric attacks by transnational organisations. These usually involve a wide variety of actors and parties, often in loose or ad hoc alliances.....The causes of these conflicts are equally complex; religion, ethnicity, politics, poverty and perceived oppression are among the many factors behind them.' Where domestic targeting occurs oppression is certainly present. The use of the term 'actors' is also entirely apt, since deception is a central weave of Info-Ops. Another notable comment here is the mention of asymmetric attacks. Asymmetrical warfare is where there is a battle between sides with significantly differing power and resources.
It is a crass appropriation of the term in targeting because targets are people who have not subscribed to any battle. This seems to be a label that those doing the targeting sometimes use in order to try and convince others and possibly themselves that they are actually involved in a war. It is another form of Info Ops deception. The ordinary members of the public who become targets of the various types of warfare used are set about with the best usable resources their own taxes have paid for. The impact is that their existence turns into something akin to an Orwellian nightmare on steroids.
Page 2-2 of JWP 3-80 states that 'Info-Ops seek to affect, degrade, disrupt, deceive, destroy or deny those capabilities that will allow the decision-maker to bolster, impose, apply and sustain his Will and to exercise effective command'. Again the wording of this implies that these ops are intended solely for going after foreign dictators or military commanders. Yet the same destructive outlook is directed at those targeted in the UK as if those members of the public had started a war. It is staggering. Within JWP 3-80 the nature of attacks on people are generally categorised as one of two types; attacks to impact on will and attacks to impact on capability. The first paragraph of Annex 2A -Information Operations Tools within JWP 3-80 states that: 'Information Operations (Info Ops) can make use of all or any activities capable of exerting influence or conducting Counter-Command Activity (CCA); it is limited only by imagination and availability.' What is loud and clear here is that these people do what they want without limit. I believe they see law, due process, morality and ethics as an irrelevance except to the point that the information presented to the public and outsiders must convince people that their actions are right and legitimate. Later, page 4-3 states: 'The effectiveness of Info Ops is improved if influence is exerted by all instruments of power and by local and regional governments and organisations that may be more readily trusted than ‘external’ parties. This requires the development of linkages to a wide range of external actors.' So essentially they will use all vehicles they can possibly recruit in order to deliver their psychological warfare. By using as many actors as possible, the nature of the activity also makes the target seem paranoid if they try to describe psy-war. Any person who complains to a health professional about the activities of targeted psy-war risks playing straight into a textbook definition personality disorder. Page 2-4 of JWP 3-80 states: 'Actions are planned and coordinated to ensure that the Info-campaign and Influence Activity
themes are reinforced.' With respect to targeting, the word 'themes' represents the types of abuse aimed at targets. This can tend to include-but is not limited to-mentioning, writing, visualizing, and acting out the themes. With repetition, for instance, trigger words and phrases are developed to result in a detrimental emotional reaction in the target, not dissimilar to Pavlovian conditioning. The most obvious desired psychological effects would typically be feelings of resentment, disempowerment, alienation, despondency, victimization etc. The operations develop 'measures of effectiveness' (JWP 3-80) for deciding as to the success of 'influencing' the person with triggers. Psy-war is adapted to target people in tailored ways. As quoted above, there is a 'personalisation of messages' (Ferbrache). Some typical categories include: -Misuse/abuse of private information (eg data, conversations, movements etc.) -Abuse of appearance, race, beliefs etc. -Abuse of existing or intended insecurities, and existing or intended fears -Mocking of target connected with effects of directed energy abuse -Posturing for intimidation, fear Delivery can tend to be: -In person through 'all instruments of power' and anyone other of the 'wide range of external actors' -Through all electronic communications, phone, internet i.e. Websites, forums, email, social networks etc. -Through all conduits of the media. Because this is an environment where the staff are 'limited only by imagination and availability', nothing is out of bounds and nothing is too offensive. So where the psy-war themes (abuse themes) are used to try and inflict maximal damage, obscene is routine. It seems as though those who instigate the abuse are encourage to direct any darkness that inhibits them at the target(s) under some illusory premise of serving a higher purpose. Page 2-5 of JWP 3-80 covers Civil-Military Co-operation: 'The role of Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) is to enable the development of links between the military and non-military parties in order to enhance unity effort. These links may offer valuable opportunities for reinforcing Influence Activity messages, which, to be effective, must be based on actual activity, and also for gaining information on perceptions and on the effectiveness of actions....However, care must be taken to avoid giving the perception that nonmilitary parties are being exploited by the military.' Through other Freedom of Information requests I am aware that the military works in Joint Agency Operations with parties such as the police. When it discusses using local parties, this is done in different ways. Such parties are used to help man surveillance operations and deliver themes. But in order to gain compliance from them, it is necessary to provide the justification for their involvement. With police this means giving some the belief that a crime has been or is likely to be
committed. So once the targets have been picked, the planning moves to the next stage. On page 3-3 of JWP 3-80 under 'Information Operations Analysis to Support the Joint Estimate' it includes text regarding Joint Operations stating: 'If it is decided to utilise deception, it will need to be incorporated into the planning process at the earliest stage and a separate planning group set up. They must ensure that these concerns are reflected in a gain/loss assessment to enable the JTFC (Joint Task Force Commander) to make a balanced judgement on the proposed action.' When they talk about Influence Activity reinforcement it is referring to getting the fellow agencies in an operation to help deliver psychological warfare themes. In real terms, they will make an asset of all parties possible in order to help abuse the target. So the actions of these actors should come as no surprise. The type of person who is minded to repeatedly and endlessly harass someone is unlikely to be honest about what they do, and as referenced above, Deception is repeatedly listed as a key component of Information Operations. Once the main carrier mechanisms for the targeting operation are in place, the recruitment of external or affiliated assets commences. Within Lt Cl I A Buchanan's 2009 presentation 'InfluenceMilitary Perspective' (via Cyber and Influence section of DSTL) he states one definition of Influence Activity in connection with Info Ops:
“The orchestrated combination of Fires, Manoeuvre, Information Activity and Other Activity to coerce, persuade or/and reassure, underpinned by communication designed to achieve effects on target audiences to get them to do something, believe something or to restore their confidence or sense of well-being”
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/128169955) Within the same document he underlines the fact that 'Fires' includes Electronic Warfare and other activities on page 14. Page 3B3 and 3B4 of JWP 3-80 the following is included the following remarks:
'Does the objective require the target audience to be mislead (sic) or compelled?'
'Identify those who will always resist the message'
The use of selecting a serious crime with which to target someone has other purposes beyond justification to other organisations and those who authorize surveillance. The Info Ops staff or the 'wide range of external actors' mentioned gain compliance from those they ask to carry their themes (harass the target) by convincing them that the person they are targeting is a real and serious criminal. People tend to be intimidated and compliant with a malevolent authority anyway (see Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram). But the addition of mentioning some terrible crime makes for a cocktail of negative emotions and strong leverage which can charge the most morally upstanding person to say or act out the most wretched bullying.
Notably in Appendix 3C1 of JWP 3-80 it states that terms such as 'evidence' should be avoided in favour of words like 'information' instead. Because when you say you have evidence, sooner or later the assets involved are likely to question why charges haven't been pressed. This is not to say that evidence couldn't be falsified, and/or convincing reasons for not prosecuting either. This can easily be done with such expertise at hand, and can leverage support from all parties. But targeting ops seem to prefer driving the target into neutralizing themselves one way or another as opposed to going straight to court. As mentioned, section 3B4 states the need to identify those who persistently resist the message. I.e. Those who refuse to be a part of the targeting. The fraction of people who do not comply will tend to be targeted themselves. Electronic Warfare and Psychological Warfare with refrains and the reintroduction of persuasive themes tend to convince them. The negative themes of the targeting tend to include deceptions (crime smears) used to justify the surveillance in the first place. The reality is that criminals commit crime. Trying to tell them that they are a criminal would be pointless since they generally know what they are. Further, it would serve as an inappropriate form of self sabotage since it would inform their need to adapt. The effects of harassing an innocent person with toxic smears as if they are guilty (or minded to commit a crime that they would not) is altogether different though. Such inappropriate treatment is a deeply disturbing experience. In targeting, the front line activities are an open secret amongst assets and the harassment is used in order to drive a target into the ground. It is such a gross and savage irony that these people are allowed to continue their activities whilst the populace are under the illusion that they are serving the greater good and protecting them. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. The normal taxpayers who fund their activities are viewed as dispensable collateral by the type of people who advocate these endless domestic operations. Sections within the military even view many of their own soldiers as dispensable judging by the experimental testing carried out on them (over decades) at Porton Down: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/may/06/science.research http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gassed-Behind-Scenes-Porton-Down/dp/1842320718/ref=sr_1_1? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362268143&sr=1-1 Ex-soldiers have also investigated their belief that there has been illegal testing of nuclear radiation on them and their fellow men also, and there have been books covering the related operations. (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/human_experiment) (Between Heaven and Hell http://www.lulu.com/shop/alan-rimmer/between-heaven-and-hell/paperback/product20529663.html)
Page 3A-2 covers requirements for Info-Ops: '3A4. Key Actors. All key actors and their inter-relationships should be identified. Their personalities, leadership styles, ambitions, motivation, objectives (short and long term), current stance, dependencies, psychological profile and personal history must be fully understood. The complex, adaptive relationships and dependencies that exist between actors and social groups must be recognised.' As one might expect, this type of process is fully applied to targeting. There are increasing numbers of software producers and consultants who specialise in analysing and charting the lives of targeted people. Psychological profiling, network charting (for each area of someone's life) and relationship charting are mapped precursors and provide a centre piece for ostracising and isolating the target or targets prior to neutralization. The operation attempts to gradually detach every link in a persons life until all or almost all of their meaningful relationships are broken. Further down the page whilst discussing the connections between Media Ops and Psy-Ops it states: 'Effective PSYOPS (Psychological Operations) require timely provision of resources such as linguistic support, graphics and print capability, broadcasting capability and other delivery mechanisms.' It continues: 'Messages can be presented by: A. Print B. Radio:immediate impact on a large audience. Broad, simple and repeated messages are required C. TV: extremely powerful, depending on audience access. D. Loudspeakers: localised impact.... E. Face to face (lectures, meetings and plays) and word of mouth (rumour and gossip)... F. Internet, faxes, pagers and mobile communications...' When one imagines how all of this applies to targeting actual individuals, you begin to grasp the extent to which they are engulfed. Of course most people would not be significantly affected by this sort of thing in their lifetime. For the victims however, the totalitarian state is not some future vision, it is a very real and present thing. As indicated they will utilize any medium they can. This means Newspapers, television, websites, magazines, advertisers etc. They are happy to circulate and promote the fact that they are carrying out news liaison in connection with war zones. In terms of domestic activities, a good PR dept
could handle that. The lack of detail in Info Ops documentation on target themes is striking. With regard to what targeting actually entails though, it is unsurprising. Such silence provides another tacit indication that the MOD is fully aware of the illegality of what they are doing. Lt Col Buchanan's final page summary provides a definition and reiteration of key components. He says Info-Ops are: ‘A military function to provide advice and coordination of military information activities in order to create desired effects on the will, understanding and capability of audiences, consistent with a UK Information Strategy.’ Employing: -PSYOPS -Presence, Posture & Profile -Deception -Electronic Warfare -Computer Network Operations -Information Security -Physical Destruction In part 2A3 of JWP 3-80 it covers 'Presence, Posture and Profile: 'The impact that the mere presence of a force may have on perceptions can be significant.' It goes on to cite more war zone specific information, but posturing has repeated mentions across influence documentation. Within targeting, it is used as a psy-war tool to induce intimidation, fear, anxiety and other negative emotions. This is another indication of why Information Operations Targeting inherently differs from normal legitimate operations. In a normal covert operation, the aim is to keep the operation a secret and this is paramount. This is for very good reason. If someone detects they are under surveillance they would be likely to change behaviour to adapt to this, and the potential success of catching the criminal in question would be significantly reduced. With targeting, this isn't a concern because they know the people that they are targeting are innocent. The actors know that it is a horrible thing for someone to be under surveillance all the time having their normal activities watched, dissected, misrepresented and circulated in perpetuity. And so they seek to maximize exploitation of the psychological and emotional response. Normal covert ops stay secret and catch the information, the criminals, or walk away. Within the House of Commons Third Report on Defence 2003/04, Air Vice Marshall Mike Heath discusses foreign Information Operations before coming back to discussing UK Psychological Warfare: “Psychological Operations is very much part of Information Operations....It is specifically military and I cannot that about most of the rest of Information Operations...It is specifically tactical and it is specifically targeted by military means into target audiences, so I saw it as
the end instrument of what we were crafting in London.” (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmdfence/57/5718.htm) This is another admission that MOD is setting it's own agenda and has significant freedom to operate in a creative and experimental way. If you were to ask the vast majority of MPs who Targeting and Information Operations are they wouldn't have a clue, never mind the facts that they are drawing up their own lists of people to Target at home in the UK in peacetime, and using illegal warfare to decimate them. The Info-Ops documentation repeatedly states the need to reinforce and repeat the Influence Activity Themes directed at the target. The experience of the individual that an operation is directed at is one of being besieged in an unrelenting torrent of bile so bracing that it would make the most blackened web troll wither. And because the operations continue indefinitely, the abuse continues; hour by hour, day by day, month by month, year by year, decade by decade (if the person lasts that long) until death. Following the targets death, documentation indicates that the operation continues and the actors reassure the people that helped them bring about the persons death that it was the correct course of action. Then they move to their next targets. When there is any type of covert operation, there is massive scope and opportunity for abuse of power. It is of paramount importance that the people who have such powers bestowed upon them are only the most morally upright and responsible individuals our society produces. It is clear by the activities these people are carrying out that they do not come into this category. The responsibility of dealing with crime or potential crime should mainly be that of the police, and sometimes the security service. This is not to say that I agree with the way in which those mentioned parties carry out their activities, only that the MOD should not be leading or manufacturing such operations with such autonomy. The nature of the activities they are carrying out indicate a sort of moral vacuum which exists within such covert operations. It is one devoid of moral guidance, and is one which has no place in a civilised society.
Following research into Information Operations I have found that Electronic Warfare may have been intrinsically linked with them since at least as early as 1964 when the first chapter of the Association of Old Crows was formed in the USA. (http://www.ukaoc.org/index.html) Having spoken to people within electromagnetic shielding companies, industry specialists, exmilitary employees and weapons historians I have found that there are many people in the public domain who are having problems with directed energy targeting. Such directed energy use is known to be classified as a form of Electronic Attack which comes under Electronic Warfare. As indicated, there is a long history of Research and Development(R&D) by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), it's previous manifestations, splinter privatisations like Qinetiq, and Universities into all manner of disciplines relating to national security, defence and military.
When someone looks at the range of what is openly being done by groups like DSTL, the dearth of information on different types of EW radiation effects is conspicuous by its absence. But indeed even cursory web research shows that every major defence contractor is investing heavily in the burgeoning development of directed energy EW equipment. The major military University in Cranfield is known to hold regular events which centre on Info-Ops, Directed Energy and EW. Through conversations with specialists, I have found that the lack of information in the public domain is not an accident. Instead it is part of a very conscious effort on the part of governmental bodies to keep previous and current activity under wraps. While aforementioned details of immoral testing on humans have already emerged, these of course are more apparent by the trail left. The overall activities of the targeting process have been referred to as “slow kill genocide” by non-military individuals. But this overlooks a lot because it isn't necessarily a slow kill. How aggressively the radiation is used can be a key factor in this. So the descriptions of such items as being non-lethal is inaccurate. They are better described as variable lethality. The more aggressively the items are used the more the targets cells will mutate and the more aggressively cancer can set in. If someone is targeted over a protracted amount of time and the radiation is key in bringing about an untimely death; is this not also a potential form of murder? The connections between parties involved in Information Operations and Electronic Warfare hardware/software/consultancy specialists is tangible. Major contracts exist between UK government agencies and organisations like Cohort PLC (£44,300,000 was reported as coming from MOD on its 2011/12 annual report), Selex Galileo (Finnmeccanica) and Thales. Those with a history of expertise in the areas of EW (especially RAF trained) are known to have been and remain very active within the branch of Targeting and Information Operations (DTIO/TIO). (http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Targeting_and_Information_Operations) And the use of Electronic Warfare in the UK is rapidly expanding. MASS (Cohort PLC subsidiary) have recently opened a new centre for electronic warfare expertise. The massive UK NOVASAR satellite development is to be launched in the near future also. Europe is moving fast to set up it's own Galileo global positioning system which might enable rapid expansion of abuse. In an MOD response to requester Paul Lewis via Whatdotheyknow.com, they acknowledged the 3 main categories of effects the radiation causes: 'it is the physical, physiological and psychological effects that characterise such weapons' (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/93585/response/239706/attach/html/2/20111123%2 0FOI%20DEW%20ACP%20IHL%20U%202%202.doc.html) This recalls psychologist George Brander's presentation text mentioned earlier. This Directed Energy usage (JWP 3-80) is an invisible and insidious form of torture from a targets point of view. The impact of the radiation for some of the victims on a day to day basis becomes one of perpetual suffering. The operation systematically tries to destroy everything that the target values in life. This is without limiting the use of psychological and electronic warfare to the targeted person. The indications are that they will use it on anyone they feel inclined to. It is hard to represent the suffering that a target endures in a way which allows people to comprehend in depth. But if you think about the impact of persecution altering someone’s emotional, physical, physiological and
psychological (eg. Consciousness, cognition, abilities) state can have at any given time, then think about using multiple types of these at the same time, then imagine this as a round the clock operation focused solely on steadily destroying the target, you will have a rough idea.
As mentioned above 'Fires' (a type of cell which is a component of operations) includes electronic warfare. On page 4-2 of JWP 3-80 it mentions the Joint Fires Element: '(JFE) is effectively the 24 hr-targeting secretariat for the JCB and selects and prioritises targets from the Joint Integrated Target List (JITL) and JRFL in accordance with the JTFC priorities....The Info Ops cell attends to ensure that proposed attacks are coherent with the Info Ops objectives and themes, proposes Info Ops targets for inclusion in the JIPTL and identifies where Info Ops may be able to contribute to the tasks of other Staff Divisions...... The Joint Electronic Warfare Co-ordination Cell (JEWCC/JEWSICC) co-ordinates EW with Info Ops through the IOPG (Information Operations Planning Group)......' The salient information here is that once again the MOD has underlined that they make their own lists of targets, they decide who they attack, and they do it 24 hours a day. The ruthless and uncontrolled use of such radiation attacks on people is sheer depravity. The longer such activities go on without any accountability, the more damage is being done. What we are looking at in terms of the expanding use of the invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum to influence, sicken or kill people is a road of societal control. Only those involved intimately can accurately ascertain just how far down that road we are. The use of such technology amounts to playing god with people's lives. And the fact is that such technology has already been with us for decades. Only the public is clueless as to it's misuse, and those on the outside who observe it can make limited projections about the scale of it with the limited knowledge they have.
There is obviously an awareness that domestic Targeting Operations will present a legitimate front in order to justify their activities. But it is difficult to say conclusively how they justify such activity internally, since there seem to be a multitude of likely payoffs. These include: -The MOD's ability to apply it's influence agenda to reshape society in a mould it envisages, -A test-bed for new DSTL and other public institution technology, ('doctrine development'), -A test-bed for private company/NGO technology which can be resold for profit, and hasten target neutralization, - Justification for the MOD keeping a large amount of staff which it might be able to apply to war zones later, as it sees strength in numbers, -Justification for the MOD keeping a large amount of it's budget which can be used/channelled in varying ways -Genetic cleansing of dissidents/activists and their families,
-Targeting of members of military/security services/police/government parties who think for themselves or question immorality & illegality, -Targeting of 'influential individuals' who espouse views the MOD doesn't like, or 'resist the message', - Steps toward a more sociopathic society which is more inclined towards belligerence, and more easily manipulated, -Those involved obviously earn a wage carrying out their actions and have a vested interest in the Info Ops self perpetuation, -Those involved may enjoy the intrusive and abusive process of targeting people in it's own right. I would like to expend slightly on the experimentation motive. In the article mentioned at the outset it included some other key quotes about DSTL activity: “We support DE&S (Defence Equipment and Supplies) in many ways such as assembling evidence for decisions, evaluating new concepts, technology development, and supporting urgent operational requirements. In addition, we execute a research programme which is, in large part, exploited through MOD’s equipment programme.” “We trial the ideas in theatre and if, as has happened so many times, they have merit, they are turned into operational requirements which we hand over in a managed way to our colleagues in DE&S.” “annual turnover is about £550m” (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dstl-working-with-the-best-ideas-in-the-world) When he refers to 'theatre' he means within operations. As broached Porton Down has form for extra-judicial activity in what appears to be an ethical vacuum. The term 'doctrine development' used by Info Ops and EW staff is another example of reprehensible activity re-branded for legitimacy. The misapplication of science and technology developments which treats ordinary people like lab rats or torture fodder should be outlawed. Never mind the fact that it's done on domestic citizens outside wars. On page 'iii' of JWP 3-80 it states that 'Info Ops is a rapidly evolving field and processes will inevitably adapt to meet developments'. In April 2010 the Cyber and Influence section of DSTL Porton Down issued a call for proposals and expressions of interest. The financials indicate the total scale of research and development ongoing. It stated that: 'Research and development (R&D) accounted for approximately £2.6Bn of the defence budget. Approximately £2.1Bn of this is part of the equipment and support programme. Approximately £500M is centrally managed as a Science, Innovation and Technology (SIT) programme' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/128171546/)
'The Defence Technology Plan, which was announced in Autumn 2007 and publicly launched in February 2009, outlines the priorities and direction that MoD requires a research programme to deliver. This call forms part of the Human & Social Influence Research Programme of the Cyber & Influence S&T Centre and will complement existing research activities identified within the Defence Technology Plan (DTP) under the Cyber & Influence RDO.'
I believe the perception portrayed in certain media of commanders who abhor red tape has a broad foundation in real life. They see it as a hurdle to advancements in warfare and some parties have successfully managed to create an environment without meaningful oversight. Appropriate regulation serves a very important purpose. As is borne out by the activities of Information Operations and Targeting, where there is no proper oversight the misuse of power gets shockingly out of hand. In the absence of checks, balances, or accountability, wrongdoing almost always tends to thrive. The laws in place can aid proper governance only when they are properly applied. The MOD should not be allowed to misappropriate British legislation in order to perpetually violate the basic rights of ordinary citizens and ruin lives. Using Psychological Warfare and Electronic Warfare to target people here is a breach of domestic Common Law, the European Convention and Human Rights Act, and the Geneva Convention.
The key points that I have sought to make are: -Those involved in Information Operations Targeting make their own lists of people to go after which includes British citizens -There are strong links between experimental military science and technology laboratories and such operations -Those involved in domestic targeting leverage and exploit every type of advantage they possibly can in order to neutralize their targets. -The MOD has a dubious history of Chemical and Biological Warfare testing on humans which related back to Porton Down where the Cyber and Influence section is based -Info-Ops use Psychological Warfare, Electronic Warfare and other types of technology to harass, abuse and ultimately drive targets to their death -It is completely illegitimate, undemocratic and illegal, and thus in breach of national security -They have freedom and autonomy to act without proper repercussion or accountability, and have been doing it for some time. It is important to state the obvious at this point. There has been no public debate on the appropriateness of Information Operations in the UK,
Nor their agenda, Nor whether they should have any role in the media, Nor the operational means they use or the powers they have, Nor the technology they use (or how they use it), Nor whether the cost (untold figures) is value for money, Nor the appropriateness of the multitude of different parties being involved in such sensitive and intrusive matters. It is beyond astounding that in a so called civilised society this sort of criminal activity is allowed to occur, state sponsored. The nature and extremity of these operations is stunning. It is entirely apparent why the MOD had to be pushed by decision notices to respond on so many Freedom of Information requests. And it is entirely apparent why they refused the information. The publication of basics statistics on such unregulated, uncontrolled, unaccountable, and largely unknown activity is something of extremely strong public interest.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.