Mediaboss Marketing

Michael Samukai, the son of Defense Minister Brownie Samukai, who is being tried for allegedly shooting Zardee Andrews in the back of his neck, told Criminal Court A yesterday that the gun used during the incident was issued to him by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The agency is expected to appear before the court on Thursday, March 2.

Defendant Samukai, who is on the witness stand, was said to have shot Andrews on September 13, 2016, during a fist fight about the victims extra marital relations with his wife. The incident occurred at the Tropicana Beach on the Robertfiled Highway.

Although, defendant Samukai testified that it was the NSA that issued him the gun, police investigation established that he acquired the weapon illegally. He, however, said the permit for the weapon is still in the possession of the NSA.

Samukai claimed that he is an employee of the NSA with a rank of deputy chief of security assigned at the National Port Authority (NPA). Despite the shooting incident, he still maintains his post.

His explanation came immediately after the prosecution asked him to produce every legitimate document in his possession that authorizes him to carry the arm.

It was due to that information that his lawyer asked the court for the agency to appear before it and to prove whether or not the defendants was authorized by the NSA to carry a firearm.

Further to his testimony, defendant Samukai alleged that he was issued the gun, after he had complained to his bosses that he had been attacked on many occasions, by unidentified persons while performing his duty at the port.

After I was physically attacked on many occasions as deputy chief of security at the port, it was when I thought that I needed protection and it was how the NSA gave me the weapon for protection, the defendant alleged.

He added that the NSA did not give him the permit for the weapon.

Explaining about the shooting incident, Samukai denied any knowledge as to who actually carried out the act.

The gun was in my jacket and while we were fighting, he spotted it and we together took it out of my clothes (jacket) and it went off, so, I do not know how he was shot, Samukai alleged.

He claimed that after the incident he immediately reported the weapon to the headquarters of the LNP, where the Police Inspector General, Gregory Coleman, advised him to leave it there because nothing was going to happen to me.

He is charged with multiple crimes, including aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit murder and illegal possession of firearm.

See the original post here:
Michael Samukai Implicates NSA in 'Gun Ownership' - Liberian Daily Observer

Say you're a senior national security adviser on a campaign and part of your job is to speak to foreign ambassadors. You know the United States government often has such foreign officials under electronic surveillance, but you also know that, as an American citizen, you're still protected by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately for you, the FBI can collect your communications emails, texts, chats, or calls with those foreign officials and look at them without a warrant.

How is that possible? Nearly 10 years ago, Congress gave the NSA broad authority to intercept Internet communications, as long as it was for foreign intelligence purposes. That authority, known as Section 702, has played a valuable role in disrupting terrorist plots and gathering foreign intelligence, but it has always had two serious flaws.

First, its drafters did not carefully consider what protections should exist for U.S. persons whose communications would be reviewed by law enforcement. Second, the drafters did not foresee what having a statute that allowed for broad collection against foreigners would mean for U.S. companies operating overseas. But now, Congress has an opportunity to fix these two flaws before this statute expires at the end of the year.

According to government officials, Section 702 has played a crucial role in disrupting terrorist plots. A group commissioned by President Barack Obama to review the statute concluded that information obtained through it had "contributed in some degree" to the success of 53 terrorism investigations. In particular, intelligence agencies have highlighted that Section 702 helped disrupt a plot to bomb the New York subway system and a terrorism financing scheme operating out of Missouri. Successes like these have led intelligence officials to describe it as their "most significant tool" for the "detection, identification, and disruption of terrorist threats."

But while Section 702 is a powerful tool in the fight against terror, it raises serious concerns in the law enforcement context.

Section 702 allows the NSA to collect the communications of foreign persons from U.S. tech companies like Microsoft and Google and from U.S. telecom firms' networks. This collection, though targeted at potentially dangerous foreigners, inevitably sweeps up the communications of innocent Americans and non-Americans. These communications can be accessed by the FBI when investigating not only national security matters, but any crime. Because Section 702 information is not obtained pursuant to a warrant, this allows the FBI to evade the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and unconstitutionally invade the privacy of Americans.

American tech companies are also affected by Section 702. After particulars of 702 surveillance were leaked to the press, foreign governments, anxious about being surveilled by the NSA, denied contracts to U.S. tech firms like Microsoft and Verizon. More destructive was a 2015 ruling by the European Court of Justice which cited concerns about Section 702 when striking down a framework known as the Safe Harbor, which protected American tech companies from certain European data regulations.

Without Safe Harbor, U.S. companies could have been required to locate Europeans' data on servers in the European Union, with this seriously increasing companies' costs and proving especially prohibitive for start-ups. Although EU and U.S. authorities quickly implemented a replacement for Safe Harbor known as Privacy Shield, that agreement is already being challenged in EU courts. If it is struck down, the commerce-killing requirements that were predicted in the aftermath of Safe Harbor could become a reality, bringing transatlantic data flows and trade to a screeching halt.

Congress should reauthorize Section 702, but it should also amend it to protect Americans' rights and empower U.S. companies to push back against government surveillance that hurts their bottom lines. As lawmakers do this, they can ensure that Americans are safe, their rights are respected, and our companies continue to compete in the global marketplace.

Also from the Washington Examiner

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will bring two guests to President Trump's speech.

02/28/17 8:38 PM

Mieke Eoyang (@MiekeEoyang) is the vice president for the National Security Program at Third Way and previously served as a subcommittee staff director on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Gary Ashcroft (@ashcroftgm) is a national security fellow at Third Way.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more:
Congress can reform the NSA to protect our rights without putting us in danger - Washington Examiner

As if not troubled enough by President Trumps attacks, a new debate is heighteningtensions in the intelligence community. The Pentagon has started to assess whether it is time todivide the leadershipof the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command.Such a move is dubious: Is change necessary? Can the IC tolerate another shock?

A look overseas to the Israeli case could provide some insight.

According to that plan, the new directorate would absorb responsibilities and resources from both Unit8200(the IDFs signals intelligence or SIGINT unit, equivalent to the NSA), as well as the Computer Service Directorate (equivalent to the Joint Staff J6). A fierce internal debate has emerged, with several (including the head of AMAN, the Intelligence Directorate) arguing that all cyber activities should remain under AMANs responsibility, while others insist that there is an acute need for a dedicated cyber directorate.

In early 2017, Lt. Gen. Eizenkot announced that the establishment of the Cyber Directorate would be postponed until further notice, and declared that AMAN would handle offensive and information collection elements in cyber space, while the Cyber Administration would come under the Computer Service Directorate, focusing mainly on defensive activities.

The reasons that led Lt. Gen. Eizenkot, who is considered a level-headed officer, to reverse his 2015 decision are highly relevant to the American case.

From a strategic standpoint, the implications of the cyber domain on present and future battlefields are still ambiguous and constantly changing; so too are their effects on traditional kinetic challenges. The inter-relations between the physical and virtual domains are still in flux, with grave ramifications on the nature of threats, and the measures needed to cope with them.

These changes are highly relevant to the way the IC reacts and adapts. The vast majority of the NSAs current collection activities are most likely executed through and with the cyber domain. Though traditional methods (such as phone tapping) are not dead, it is safe to assume that cyber is more dominant than ever, and will only continue to grow over more traditional domains and methods. Furthermore, given the specific characteristics of the cyber domain, it is difficult to distinguish between types of cyber activities (e.g., collection vs. attack). Separating those in charge of SIGINT and those in charge of cyber doesnt make sense.

as the last few years have taught us, the Wests adversaries have themselves transitioned to the cyber domain. With Russias (alleged)interventionin the U.S. elections, theSnowden affair, HAMAS and Irans extensive use ofcyber-related techniques, Chinesetheftof F-35 plans, and ISISssophisticated useof the virtual domain, this may not be the right time for radical changes.

Separating the NSA and the Cyber Command would inevitably create a long transition period, during which U.S. cyber capabilities would be negatively affected. Disputes over missions and responsibilities, coordination issues, transition of manpower, and lack of sufficient resources in one or both entities would jeopardize U.S. cyber resilience in the short term at the very least.

Finally, with Trump trying to aggressivelyredefinerelations between the IC and the executive branch, the last thing the community needs at this moment is another shock. A decision to separate the NSA and Cyber Command would create an all-out war within the IC and the Department of Defense, since no sane commander would agree to surrender responsibilities and resources to another organization.

The NSA itself would lose not only prestige but also relevancy, and presumably try to torpedo the move. If any change is needed at all, it would require a different approach: the cyber component should gain supremacy over any other type of SIGINT activity, as this will be the not-too-distant future reality. Until then, NSA-Cyber Command relations should remain untouched.

Shay Hershkovitz, Ph.D., is chief strategy officer at Wikistrat, Inc. and a political science professor at Tel Aviv University specializing in intelligence studies. He is also a former IDF intelligence officer whose book, "Aman Comes To Light," deals with the history of the Israeli intelligence community.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read the original:
NSA, Cyber Command structure should remain the same - The Hill (blog)

Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster / AP

BY: Adam Kredo February 24, 2017 1:25 pm

Incoming White House National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster sought to reassure senior Trump administration officials during his first "all hands" staff meeting Thursday, according to those who attended the get together and told the Washington Free Beacon that McMaster informed staffers he does not intend to pursue a major shakeup of President Donald Trump's national security team.

McMaster, who replaced Michael Flynn following his resignation last week, plans to navigate a vast departure from the Obama administration's foreign policy vision, according to senior White House officials who described the meeting as "reassuring." McMaster emphasized that he will not dismantle the team that Flynn had built.

As part of his discussion with White House national security staff, McMaster recommended a comprehensive reading list that included President Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal," and several other tomes by leading historians about how to get the upper hand on America's enemies. White House staff are said to have been mostly "thrilled" when hearing about the book list.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about McMaster's vision, as laid out in the Thursday meeting, expressed optimism about his appointment and pushed back on what they described as false media narratives centered around White House disarray following Flynn's departure.

"It's no secret we've had a few more all-hands meetings than we intended in our first monthbut General McMaster used this event to both reassure the NSC staff and to give us the tools to continue the mission," said one senior White House National Security Council official who requested anonymity while discussing internal White House meetings.

McMaster explicitly told White House officials that he does not aim to dismantle Trump's foreign policy team or push out those perceived as still loyal to Flynn. These comments run counter to a recent New York Times report claiming that McMaster is pursuing a massive reorganization of the president's national security team.

"He made it clear he wasn't there to grind a political axe or engage in a witch hunt," the senior White House official said. "He was there to provide leadership, including direction on how to think about the task in front of us."

To help with this effort, McMaster recommended several books meant to help current White House officials understand his own foreign policy vision.

One senior White House official who spoke to the Free Beacon described the reading list as pleasantly surprising and a vast departure from the former Obama administration's own national security vision.

In addition to Trump's "Art of the Deal," McMaster recommended reading his own book, "Dereliction of Duty," which catalogues the mistakes that led the United States into a quagmire in Vietnam.

He also suggestedthat White House staffers read Peter Rodman's "Presidential Command," which McMaster reportedly referred to as the "gold standard" in foreign policy history. Rodman was a top official in the Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and both Bush administrations.

Senior White House staff are said to have found the mention of the book "very reassuring."

"It's certainly encouraging to see General McMaster highlighting his legacy," one source said.

McMaster went on to further recommend two books by Zachary Shore, a historian and international conflict expert who teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School.

One Shore book, "Blunder: Why Smart People Make Bad Decisions," was described as "a cautionary tale for the staff" at the White House. The other, "A Sense of the Enemy," examines methods to overtake rival forces.

Lastly, McMaster recommended staff read an essay by Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan titled, "The Rhyme of History," which tackles lessons from World War I.

Senior White House officials who took part in the meeting described the reading list as encouraging and part of an effort to restore conservative principals focused primarily on defending the U.S.'s best interests.

The mention of MacMillan's essay in particular "suggests General McMaster does not consider the 21st century a sort of post-historical bubble, but rather that there is a great deal to be learned from history as we chart our path forward," said one official who described McMaster as advocating a wholesale reversal from the Obama administration's vision.

Several historians currently serve on the White House's national security team, including Col. Derek Harvey, a former advisor to Gen. David Petraeus; Michael Anton, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, and Victoria Coates, a former top aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and art historian.

See the rest here:
Newly Installed NSA McMaster Reassures National Security Staff: No Witch Hunts Coming - Washington Free Beacon

Adm. Michael S. Rogers, commander, U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and head of the National Security Agency. US Navy Photo

SAN DIEGO, Calif. The head of the National Security Agency reiterated that Russia engaged in cyber actions to influence the result of the U.S. presidential election and said the Moscow-directed interference is changing the way the NSA thinks about U.S. critical infrastructure.

We have been very public particularly if I put on my NSA hat in categorizing the behaviors we saw, from a cyber perspective, the Russians engaged in terms of our election process. We were very confident that, hey, this happened. What does that mean? said Adm. Rogers, who also heads U.S. Cyber Command, said on Thursday at the West 2017 conference.

It highlights to us that we need to rethink what critical infrastructure means in the digital age. We tended to view historically critical infrastructure as something associated with an output. Hey, air traffic. Hey, pipelines. The financial world. Power distribution. Generally, we thought a very industrial set of processes that generated some sort of output.

What the Russians did to influence the U.S. election adds a new dimension to what the U.S. should work to protect from influence from a cyber action or attack, he said.

What about information, data and fundamental processes like the ability to ensure high confidence that in a Western democracy the electoral outcome is actually reflective of the majority of our citizens, which is at the heart of the democratic system? he said. We have to think of it in a different way, and data increasingly has a value all of its own.

Rogers cited the attacks on the Office of Personnel Management in which the personal data of more than 21. 5 million people who had undergone the U.S. security clearance process was breached and the Russias hack of Democratic National Committee emails and subsequent distribution on Wikileaks as new types of threats.

You saw that in OPM, you saw that with the Russians the way they penetrated systems, moved data and then provided that in very public, unaltered format, he said. So we have to work through that. We need to work with a broader set of nations to clearly signal that this is unacceptable, and we need to drive the calculus in a different way.

Separately during the conference event, Rogers said the Trump administration has made cyber security a priority and predicted administration-level action soon.

The discussions moderator, retired Adm. James Stavridis, former NATO supreme commander and U.S. Naval Institute chairman, said that a Trump executive order on cyber was in the works and asked Rogers on the status.

Theres an ongoing dialogue that the administration I dont want to speak for them but if you take their statements, theyve been very upfront about the desire to make this a priority and a focus area in the early stages of the administration, Rogers said. I expect it to play out sometime in the immediate near term. The process always takes longer than you would like, but I think this would play out. The biggest input Ive tried to provide and Im just one voice take this opportunity to step back and look at this with a new set of eyes and say, if you were creating this from the ground up, how would you do this?

Originally posted here:
NSA Head: Russian Interference in US Election, 'Hey, This Happened' - USNI News