We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
The A.E.G. C.I was the first in a series of armed reconnaissance aircraft, and was based on the unarmed A.E.G. B.II.
The B.II was a two-bay biplane, with a welded steel tube fuselage, wooden wing ribs and a fabric cover. It was introduced in 1915, by which time observation aircraft were increasingly coming to be armed.
A.E.G. responded to the requirement for an armed reconnaissance aircraft with the C.I, designed by Ingenieur George König. This used most of the structure of the B.II, but with a more powerful 150hp Benz Bz.III inline engine. As on the B.II the engine mounting was rather ugly, with most of the engine exposed above the fuselage. The C.I was armed with a single machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear observer's cockpit. The C.I was designed to be a stable reconnaissance aircraft.
The C.I appeared in March 1915
The C.I was followed in October 1915 by the C.II, which was designed to be more manoeuvrable than the C.I.
Engine: Benz Bz.III inline engine
Span: 42ft 10 1/2in
Length: 26ft 0 7/8in
Empty weight: 1,562lb
Loaded weight: 2,475lb
Max speed: 81.25mph
Climb Rate: 4.5min to 3,280ft
Armament: One flexibly mounted machine gun
Books on the First World War |Subject Index: First World War
26 U.S. Code § 911 - Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad
The term “foreign earned income” with respect to any individual means the amount received by such individual from sources within a foreign country or countries which constitute (B) Certain amounts not included in foreign earned income The foreign earned income for an individual shall not include amounts—
The foreign earned income of an individual which may be excluded under subsection (a)(1) for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount of foreign earned income computed on a daily basis at an annual rate equal to the exclusion amount for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
For purposes of applying subparagraph (A), amounts received shall be considered received in the taxable year in which the services to which the amounts are attributable are performed.
In applying subparagraph (A) with respect to amounts received from services performed by a husband or wife which are community income under community property laws applicable to such income, the aggregate amount which may be excludable from the gross income of such husband and wife under subsection (a)(1) for any taxable year shall equal the amount which would be so excludable if such amounts did not constitute community income.
The exclusion amount for any calendar year is $80,000.
The Secretary may issue regulations or other guidance providing for the adjustment of the percentage under subparagraph (A)(i) on the basis of geographic differences in housing costs relative to housing costs in the United States.
Except as provided in clause (ii), only housing expenses incurred with respect to that abode which bears the closest relationship to the tax home of the individual shall be taken into account under paragraph (1).
To the extent the housing cost amount of any individual for any taxable year is not attributable to employer provided amounts, such amount shall be treated as a deduction allowable in computing adjusted gross income to the extent of the limitation of subparagraph (B).
The amount not allowable as a deduction for any taxable year under subparagraph (A) by reason of the limitation of subparagraph (B) shall be treated as a deduction allowable in computing adjusted gross income for the succeeding taxable year (and only for the succeeding taxable year) to the extent of the limitation of clause (ii) for such succeeding taxable year.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term “employer provided amounts” means any amount paid or incurred on behalf of the individual by the individual’s employer which is foreign earned income included in the individual’s gross income for the taxable year (without regard to this section).
For purposes of this paragraph, an individual’s foreign earned income for any taxable year shall be determined without regard to the limitation of subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(2).
The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.
In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business in which both personal services and capital are material income-producing factors, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 30 percent of his share of the net profits of such trade or business, shall be considered as earned income.
The term “tax home” means, with respect to any individual, such individual’s home for purposes of section 162(a)(2) (relating to traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period for which his abode is within the United States, unless such individual is serving in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive order as a combat zone for purposes of section 112 in support of the Armed Forces of the United States.
No deduction or exclusion from gross income under this subtitle or credit against the tax imposed by this chapter (including any credit or deduction for the amount of taxes paid or accrued to a foreign country or possession of the United States) shall be allowed to the extent such deduction, exclusion, or credit is properly allocable to or chargeable against amounts excluded from gross income under subsection (a).
The sum of the amount excluded under subsection (a) and the amount deducted under subsection (c)(4)(A) for the taxable year shall not exceed the individual’s foreign earned income for such year.
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any individual during any period in which such individual’s activities are not in violation of the regulations described in subparagraph (B).
An election under subsection (a) shall apply to the taxable year for which made and to all subsequent taxable years unless revoked under paragraph (2).
A taxpayer may revoke an election made under paragraph (1) for any taxable year after the taxable year for which such election was made. Except with the consent of the Secretary, any taxpayer who makes such a revocation for any taxable year may not make another election under this section for any subsequent taxable year before the 6th taxable year after the taxable year for which such revocation was made.
Terms used in this paragraph which are also used in section 1(h) shall have the respective meanings given such terms by section 1(h), except that in applying subparagraph (B) the adjustments under part VI of subchapter A shall be taken into account.
For administrative and penal provisions relating to the exclusions provided for in this section, see sections 6001, 6011, 6012(c), and the other provisions of subtitle F.
For inflation adjustment of certain items in this section, see Revenue Procedures listed in a table under section 1 of this title.
The Trading with the Enemy Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(8)(B)(i), is act Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 106, 40 Stat. 411, which is classified principally to chapter 53 (§ 4301 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 4301 of Title 50 and Tables.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, referred to in subsec. (d)(8)(B)(i), is Pub. L. 95–223, title II, Dec. 28, 1977 , 91 Stat. 1626, which is classified generally to chapter 35 (§ 1701 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1701 of Title 50 and Tables.
2018–Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 115–123 inserted before period at end “, unless such individual is serving in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive order as a combat zone for purposes of section 112 in support of the Armed Forces of the United States”.
2017—Subsec. (b)(2)(D)(ii)(II). Pub. L. 115–97, § 11002(d)(9), substituted “for ‘2016’ in subparagraph (A)(ii)” for “for ‘1992’ in subparagraph (B)”.
Subsec. (f)(1)(B). Pub. L. 115–97, § 12001(b)(3)(E)(i), substituted “section 55(b)(1)(B)” for “section 55(b)(1)(A)(ii)” and “section 55(b)(1)(A)” for “section 55(b)(1)(A)(i)” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (f)(2)(B). Pub. L. 115–97, § 12001(b)(3)(E)(ii), substituted “section 55(b)(1)(B)” for “section 55(b)(1)(A)(ii)” in introductory provisions and in cl. (i).
2014—Subsec. (b)(2)(D)(i). Pub. L. 113–295, § 221(a)(73), amended cl. (i) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (i) listed exclusion amounts for calendar years beginning from 1998 to 2002 and thereafter.
Subsec. (f)(1). Pub. L. 113–295, § 215(a), inserted concluding provisions.
Subsec. (f)(2)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 113–295, § 202(b), substituted “described in section 1(h)(1)(B), and the reference in section 55(b)(3)(C)(ii) to the excess described in section 1(h)(1)(C)(ii), shall each be treated as a reference to each such excess as determined” for “described in section 1(h)(1)(B) shall be treated as a reference to such excess as determined”.
2007—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 110–172 amended heading and text generally, substituting provisions relating to determination of tax liability, special rules for determining regular tax and alternative minimum tax, and definitions for former provisions relating to determination of tax liability and tentative minimum tax.
2006—Subsec. (b)(2)(D)(ii). Pub. L. 109–222, § 515(a)(1), substituted “2005” for “2007” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 109–222, § 515(b)(2)(A), inserted “to the extent such expenses do not exceed the amount determined under paragraph (2)” after “the taxable year”.
Subsec. (c)(1)(B)(i). Pub. L. 109–222, § 515(b)(1), amended cl. (i) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (i) read as follows: “16 percent of the salary (computed on a daily basis) of an employee of the United States who is compensated at a rate equal to the annual rate paid for step 1 of grade GS–14, multiplied by”.
Subsec. (c)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 109–222, § 515(b)(2)(B), added par. (2) and redesignated former pars. (2) and (3) as (3) and (4), respectively.
Subsec. (d)(4). Pub. L. 109–222, § 515(b)(2)(C)(i), substituted “, (c)(1)(B)(ii), and (c)(2)(A)(ii)” for “and (c)(1)(B)(ii)” in concluding provisions.
Subsec. (d)(7). Pub. L. 109–222, § 515(b)(2)(C)(ii), which directed substitution of “subsection (c)(4)” for “subsection (c)(3)”, was executed by substituting “subsection (c)(4)(A)” for “subsection (c)(3)(A)” to reflect the probable intent of Congress .
Subsecs. (f), (g). Pub. L. 109–222, § 515(c), added subsec. (f) and redesignated former subsec. (f) as (g).
1997—Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 105–34, § 1172(a)(1), substituted “equal to the exclusion amount for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins” for “of $70,000”.
1986—Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 99–514, § 1233(a), in amending subpar. (A) generally, substituted “an annual rate of $70,000” for “the annual rate set forth in the following table for each day of the taxable year within the applicable period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(1):
“In the case of taxable years beginning in:
The annual rate is:
1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, or 1987
Subsec. (d)(8), (9). Pub. L. 99–514, § 1233(b), added par. (8) and redesignated former par. (8) as (9).
1984—Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 98–369 amended table by striking out item which set the annual rate at $75,000 for taxable years beginning in 1982, substituted item setting the annual rate at $80,000 for taxable years beginning in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, or 1987 for items which had set annual rates of $80,000 for taxable years beginning in 1983, $85,000 for taxable years beginning in 1984, $90,000 for taxable years beginning in 1985, and $95,000 for taxable years beginning in 1986 and thereafter, and added items setting annual rates of $85,000 for taxable years beginning in 1988, $90,000 for taxable years beginning in 1989, and $95,000 for taxable years beginning in 1990 and thereafter.
1983—Subsec. (c)(3)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 97–448, § 101(c)(2), substituted “subsection (a)” for “subsection (a)(1)”.
Subsec. (d)(7), (8). Pub. L. 97–448, § 101(c)(1), added par. (7) and redesignated former par. (7) as (8).
1981—Pub. L. 97–34 amended section generally, modifying the eligibility standards of existing law, replacing the existing system of deduction for excess living costs with an exclusion of a portion ofPub. L. 96–595 § 4(c)(1), inserted “or from charitable services” after “camps” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–595, § 4(a), inserted “or who performs qualified charitable services in a lesser developed country,” after “hardship area”.
Pub. L. 96–222, § 108(a)(1)(C), (D), substituted “a foreign country or” for “qualified foreign” in par. (2) and, in provisions following par. (2), substituted “his gross income any deduction,” for “his gross income” and “other than the deduction allowed by section 217” for “other than the deductions allowed by sections 217”.
Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 96–595, § 4(b)(1), substituted “Dollar limitations” for “In general” in heading, redesignated existing provisions as cl. (i), and in cl. (i) as so redesignated, inserted “Camp residents—In the case of an individual who resides in a camp located in a hardship area” before “the amount excluded”, and added cls. (ii) and (iii).
1978—Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(g)(1), formerly § 202(f)(1), substituted “Income earned by individuals in certain camps” for Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(a), in introductory provisions inserted reference to an individual described in section 913(a) who, because of his employment, resides in a camp located in a hardship area, in par. (1) substituted reference to amounts received from sources within a foreign country or countries for reference to amounts received from sources without the United States, in par. (2) substituted reference to amounts received from sources within qualified foreign countries for reference to amounts received from sources without the United States, and in provisions following par. (2) struck out “any deductions (other than those allowed by section 151, relating to personal exemptions),” after “deduction from his gross income” and inserted “, other than the deductions allowed by sections 217 (relating to moving expenses)” after “subsection”.
Pub. L. 95–600, § 701(u)(10)(A), inserted provisions setting forth formula for determining amount of reduction of taxes, and struck out provisions relating to the credit against taxes.
Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(b), substituted “The amount excluded” for “Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the amount excluded” and “an annual rate of $20,000 for days during which he resides in a camp” for “an annual rate of $15,000”.
Subsec. (c)(1)(B). Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(b), substituted provisions relating to conditions upon which an individual will be considered to reside in a camp because of his employment for provisions which related to the amount excluded from the gross income of an individual performing qualified charitable services.
Subsec. (c)(1)(C). Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(b), substituted provisions relating to definition of “hardship area” for provisions which related to the amount excluded from the gross income of an individual performing both qualified charitable services and other services.
Subsec. (c)(1)(D). Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(b), struck out subpar. (D) which defined “qualified charitable services”.
Pub. L. 95–600, § 703(e), redesignated former par. (8) as (7). Such par. (8) was subsequently repealed by section 202(e) of Pub. L. 95–615 without taking into account the redesignation of par. (8) as (7) by Pub. L. 95–600. See 1978 Amendment note for subsec. (c)(8) below.
Subsec. (c)(8). Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(e), struck out par. (8) which related to the nonexclusion under subsec. (a) of any amount attributable to services performed in a foreign country or countries if such amount was received outside of the foreign country or countries where such services were performed and if one of the purposes was the avoidance of any tax imposed by such foreign country or countries on such amount.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(d)(1), redesignated subsec. (e) as (d), inserted “for the taxable year” after “section apply”, and struck out provision that an election was applicable to the taxable year for which made and to all subsequent taxable years. Former subsec. (d), which related to the computation of tax imposed by section 1 or section 1201 if an individualPub. L. 95–600, § 401(b)(4), struck out provisions respecting applicability of section 1201 of this title.
Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(d)(1), (2), redesignated subsec. (f) as (e). Former subsec. (e) redesignated (d).
1977—Subsec. (d)(1)(B). Pub. L. 95–30 substituted “on the sum of (i) the amount of net excludedPub. L. 94–455, §§ 1011(b)(1), 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary” in par. (1), and in provisions following par. (2), inserted “or as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter any credit for the amount of taxes paid or accrued to a foreign country or possession of the United States, to the extent that such deductions or credit is” after “personal exemptions)”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.
Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1011(a), reduced the amount excludable from individual’s gross income from $20,000 to $15,000 and $20,000 for employees of charitable organizations, added special rule to be applied to income from charitable sources and other sources combined, inserted definition of “qualified charitable services”, and struck out provisions relating to $25,000 exclusion for individual who has been a bona fide resident in a foreign country for an uninterrupted period of 3 years.
Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(115), struck out par. (7) relating to certain noncash remuneration from sources outside the United States.
Subsecs. (d) to (f). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1011(b)(3), added subsecs. (d) and (e) and redesignated former subsec. (d) as (f).
1966—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 89–809 designated existing text as par. (1) and added par. (2).
1964—Subsec. (c)(1)(B). Pub. L. 88–272 substituted “$25,000” for “$35,000”.
1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–834 substituted “which constitutePub. L. 87–834 added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).
1958—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 85–866 added subsec. (c).
Amendment by section 11002(d)(9) of Pub. L. 115–97 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017 , see section 11002(e) of Pub. L. 115–97, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
Amendment by section 12001(b)(3)(E) of Pub. L. 115–97 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017 , see section 12001(c) of Pub. L. 115–97, set out as a note under section 11 of this title.
Amendment by section 202(b) of Pub. L. 113–295 effective as if included in the provision of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–240, to which such amendment relates, see section 202(f) of Pub. L. 113–295, set out as a note under section 55 of this title.
Amendment by section 215(a) of Pub. L. 113–295 effective as if included in the provisions of the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110–172, to which such amendment relates, see section 215(c) of Pub. L. 113–295, set out as a note under section 56 of this title.
Amendment by section 221(a)(73) of Pub. L. 113–295 effective Dec. 19, 2014 , subject to a savings provision, see section 221(b) of Pub. L. 113–295, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 110–172 effective as if included in the provisions of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–222, to which such amendment relates, with certain exceptions, see section 4(d) of Pub. L. 110–172, set out as a note under section 355 of this title.
Who was C. I. Scofield?
Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843&ndash1921) was an influential American minister. His Scofield Reference Bible, filled with helpful annotations on the text, was published in 1909 and became the standard for a generation of fundamentalist Christians and popularized dispensational theology.
C. I. Scofield had quite a colorful early life as a Confederate soldier who served with distinction. After the war, he served in the Kansas House of Representatives and as the U. S. District Attorney for Kansas (appointed by President Grant) but was forced to resign due to scandal and questionable practices, and it is possible that he even served some time in jail. Scofield was a heavy drinker and abandoned his wife and children. He apparently courted another woman before his divorce (on the grounds of desertion) was finalized.
Some of the unsavory facts about Scofield’s life have been buried by those who agree with his teachings, and those same facts have been used by others who oppose his dispensationalism to prove that he was unfit to be a minister or Bible teacher. Both of these responses are wrong. The accuracy or inaccuracy of Scofield’s teaching is logically distinct from his personal life. His teachings must be evaluated by the Word of God. Furthermore, the life that he lived before coming to Christ, even if some of his bad behavior continued for a couple of years after his profession of faith, does not disqualify him from later ministry. John Newton also continued in some sinful behavior after making a profession of faith, but no one is ripping “Amazing Grace” out of the hymnal. The point is that, in both individuals, the Spirit of God began to bring about change, and ultimately the changes were manifest and significant.
C. I. Scofield came to faith in Christ through the witness of an acquaintance. He began serving in Christian ministries, including the YMCA, and he helped organize a D. L. Moody evangelistic campaign in St. Louis. Scofield eventually became an ordained Congregational minister and continued to work with D. L. Moody.
Scofield produced several major theological works. First, he wrote a book called Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, which expresses the principles of dispensational hermeneutics. Second, his annotated reference Bible became the standard for a generation. Finally, his Bible correspondence course made his teaching readily available around the world. All three of these works are still available today. Scofield’s impact has been magnified by his influence on Lewis Sperry Chafer, who founded Dallas Theological Seminary. DTS became the most prominent dispensational seminary in the world its many high-profile graduates include Chuck Swindoll, Tony Evans, David Jeremiah, J. Vernon McGee, Hal Lindsey, and Bruce Wilkinson.
Many dispensationalists and premillennialists still consider Scofield a hero, although his particular brand of dispensationalism is not as popular today, as progressive dispensationalism is more in favor.
The Atlantean Conspiracy“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.” - US President Harry S. Truman, 1961
In 1945 when the CIA was still the OSS, they began Operation Paperclip which brought over 70 0 Nazi scientists directly into the forming CIA, NSA, and other high-level government organizations. Since it was illegal to even allow these Na zis into the US, let alone into top-secret government agencies, the CIA convinced the Vatican to issue American passports for these 700+ Nazi scientists under the pretense that it was to keep them out of the hands of the Russians. “After WWII ended in 1945, victorious Russian and American intelligence teams began a treasure hunt throughout occupied Germany for military and scientific booty. They were looking for things like new rocket and aircraft designs, medicines, and electronics. But they were also hunting down the most precious ‘spoils’ of all: the scientists whose work had nearly won the war for Germany. The engineers and intelligence officers of the Nazi War Machine. Following the discovery of flying discs (foo-fighters), particle/laser beam weaponry in German military bases, the War Department decided that NASA and the CIA must control this technology, and the Nazi engineers that had worked on this technology. There was only one problem: it was illegal. U.S. law explicitly prohibited Nazi officials from immigrating to America--and as many as three-quarters of the scientists in question had been committed Nazis.” -Operation Paperclip Casefile: New World Order and Nazi Germany
“Military Intelligence ‘cleansed’ the files of Nazi references. By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had been granted citizenship in the U.S. and given prominent positions in the American scientific community. Many had been longtime members of the Nazi party and the Gestapo, had conducted experiments on humans at concentration camps, had used slave labor, and had committed other war crimes. In a 1985 expose in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Linda Hunt wrote that she had examined more than 130 reports on Project Paperclip subjects - and every one ‘had been changed to eliminate the security threat classification.’ A good example of how these dossiers were changed is the case of Werner von Braun. A September 18, 1947, report on the German rocket scientist stated, ‘Subject is regarded as a potential security threat by the Military Governor.’ The following February, a new security evaluation of Von Braun said, ‘No derogatory information is available on the subject … It is the opinion of the Military Governor that he may not constitute a security threat to the United States.’” -Operation Paperclip Casefile: New World Order and Nazi Germany
In 1953 the Iranian coup classified as Operation AJAX was the CIA’s first successful overthrow of a foreign government. In 1951 Iran Parliament and Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq voted for nationalizing their oil industry which upset western oil barons like the Rockefellers. On April 4 th , 1953, CIA director Allen Dulles transferred $1 million to Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to be used “in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddeq.” Coup leaders first planted anti-Mosaddeq propaganda throughout the Iranian press, held demonstrations, and bribed officials. Then they began committing terror attacks to blame on Mosaddeq hoping to bring public sentiment away from their hero. They machine-gunned civilians, bombed mosques, and then passed out pamphlets saying, “Up with Mosaddeq, up with Communism, down with Allah.” Zahedi’s coup took place between August 15 th and 19 th after which the CIA sent $5 million more for helping their new government consolidate power. Soon America controlled half of Iran’s oil production and American weapons merchants moved in making almost $20 billion off Iran in the next 20 years.
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook stated before the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not actually a terrorist group, but a database of international Mujahadden and arms dealers/smugglers used by the CIA to funnel arms, money, and guerrillas. The word “Al Qaeda” itself literally translates to “the database.” Not only did the CIA create the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, they continued funding them right up to the 9/11 attacks blamed on them. For example, four months prior to 9/11, in May, 2001, Colin Powell gave another $43 million in aid to the Taliban. “Not even the corporate US media could whitewash these facts and so explained it away by alleging that US officials had sought cooperation from Pakistan because it was the original backer of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic leadership of Afghanistan accused by Washington of harboring Bin Laden. Then the so called ‘missing link’ came when it was revealed that the head of the ISI was the principal financier of the 9/11 hijackers . Pakistan and the ISI is the go between of the global terror explosion. Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus, which literally created and sponsored the Taliban and Al Qaeda, is directly upheld and funded by the CIA. These facts are not even in dispute, neither in the media nor in government. Therefore when we are told by the neocon heads of the new world order that they are doing everything in their power to dismantle the global terror network what we are hearing is the exact opposite of the truth. They assembled it, they sponsored it and they continue to fund it. As any good criminal should, they have a middleman to provide plausible deniability, that middleman is the ISI and the military dictatorship of Pakistan.” -Steve Watson, “U.S. Intel Officer: Al Qaeda Leadership Allowed to Operate Freely” (http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2007/160707ISI.htm)
Isn't it interesting how Robin Cook died after stating a few painful truths about the CIA and Taliban? In his position he would surely have had a lot of info on many other groups including the IRA. They were another funded organisation and brought terror to the UK for such a long time.
I grew up in the UK being quite aware that "rich americans" were funding the IRA and now I am older I see the exact same thing happening elsewhere. In fact our whole lives and past history this has been the case.
Fear drives the machinery. And fear has perpetuated now as even the drivers of the machine are in fear so it will (seemingly) never stop.
It is great to see researched fact of what we know by intuition and reason.
I am an american ,and know we have
a deceitful govt. One thing that
always has shocked me, was the
Vatican's involvement in all this
Believe it or not US govt is
known for doing underhanded
Did the IRA support and finance the German terrorist group Baader Meinhof ?
It seems they did and from reading Ben Bella Books John Coventry’s “I was, I am, I will be”. It is astounding in its evidence. I was left shocked as it showed that while the IRA was being financed by American Benefactors, the US dollars where being funneled into the German Terrorists Baader Meinhof.
“I was, I am, I will be”. proves that the intelligence services had a mole inside the German terrorists Baader Meinhof but the real surprise was when I read that it was not the German’s that controlled this Mole, It was the British.But are all Governments the same with their double standards?
was just wondering, wasnt 'Tim Osman' the agent name for Osama ?
and..finally found a blog specializing in conspiracies!!
Hey, that's right, the picture with Brzezinski is all our favorite boogey man, Osama Bin Laden, long-time CIA asset Tim Osman. Nice blog Ibucketbot, keep up the great work! Peace.
People who know these things seem to die,,strange. Just finished reading John Coventry I was I am I will be, how funding was and is made to these terror groups. There is some shocking evidence in this book,well worth a read.
Hey Eric. I’ve been reading your blog for about a year now and I find I’m usually in agreement with you, or at least am given interesting things to think on. However, whenever I read anything regarding the CIA, I always take it with a grain of salt. This is because I personally know a former CIA agent. It was this man who opened my eyes to the shadow gov’t behind the scenes, who told me 9/11 was an inside job, who taught me to: 1. Question everything and 2. Keep an open mind. This man is my father.
Now it is true that CIA has been involved with some nefarious doings… in fact, my father has said multiple times that were he not a follower of Jesus Christ, he would have committed suicide long ago because of what he knows and what he seen and occasionally, what he has been involved with. He quotes Solomon, “With wisdom comes sorrow, with knowledge comes much grief”. (He did not know what he would be involved with when he was recruited). A CIA agent may object to having to carry out orders they morally disagree with, but when those orders come directly from the President, then what can they do? They took an oath, and their word is their bond.
I do believe that the CIA receives a much worse rap than they deserve. The men and women that my father worked with were, for the most part, good and decent people, lovers and seekers of the truth, devoted to their country. (My dad did mention that outside the CIA, he personally knew of many high-ranking gov’t officials who were Satanists and very open about it). When an agent is inducted into the CIA, they take an oath to protect the US against enemies, both foreign and domestic. When Bush Sr. became director of CIA, he made counter-narcotics trafficking a duty of the CIA. My dad believes this was pure distraction to prevent CIA from doing what their original job was, protecting America against foreign and domestic enemies (the domestic enemies are within our own gov’t). CIA is not a law-enforcement agency, so all they can do is report on what crime they find…but often nothing is done about it (this is why my dad couldn’t wait to retire…so sick of the bullshit). Bush Sr. also brought a lot of Jewish people into the CIA, which seriously compromised their security, since prior to this time, the CIA was spying on Mossad and vice versa. (you’d be amazed at how many high ranking members of the US gov’t are actually agents for the Mossad…or maybe you wouldn’t. Israel truly is our greatest threat).
So all this to say, I urge you to keep an open mind when you read about the CIA. Even those CIA agents who write books or speak out about “what really goes on” are probably not telling the whole truth. The agency is so shrouded in secrecy that they are often a convenient boogeyman on which to place blame.
By the way, the CIA headquarters is the ONLY gov’t building which has a Bible verse inscribed upon it: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.
Just something for you to ponder on. Question everything! Keep an open mind! And keep up the good work Eric.
(p.s. Osama died in 2002 of kidney failure)
Meet YOUR Puppet Master--she wears RED NAIL POLISH:
Thanks for the comment Anonymous. I'm sure your father is one of the good guys, and I don't doubt that there are many good men within the ranks of the CIA, just like there are good men to be found in the Masons and other crooked organizations. The key is as I mentioned in the article: "They compartmentalize the organization in a pyramid-like hierarchical structure keeping everyone but the elite on a need-to-know basis." They'll give you regular promotions and fancy high-sounding titles but if you've been prospected as one of the "good guys" then you'll never make it into the actual higher levels where the Satanism and other corrupt criminality is going on. Psychopaths are highly adept at recognizing their own kind. If you're not one of them, they know. Glad to hear from a long-time reader, I appreciate the encouragement :) Peace
I think we can expect more, a lot of intervention action seems to be target around youth bulges.
I put a council of foreign relations link on it above.
Essentially we're seeing really high numbers of youth, in lots of islamic countries. They don't have good job prospects, and are "full of piss and vinegar". We can see these numbers in the arab spring, or in the U.S. in the 60s. These booms are usually responsible for social upheaval.
So you say, well this guy in egypt is not handing things so well, and he has some restless kids in his country. There is going to be a take over, and we need to get some people in there, to make sure it does not stir the middle east into a full scale war zone. You'd probably want that take over to go as smooth as possible. I mean, your dumping foreign aid on them, so your sorta invested. then you've funded their military, and you have allies in the region. So I don't think non interference is an option.
If you look at OPTOR, and some of gene sharps work on non-violent struggle, I think you see a push, to make these things as bloodless as possible.
You end up with an alternative that is, ""we don't know what this nut is going to do" and "he is very hostile towards his neighbors".
A live and let live strategy is difficult, we saw what Saddam did in 91, and half the world had to rush in and push him back.
But yah, the cold war was messy, and hardly bloodless. War of spies, fought in almost every country. Vietnam, Korea, just battle fiends. You could almost call it world war three.
We're still paying for some botched jobs.
I've been thinking about that lately. just because TPTB haven't come out in the mainstream media and labelled the last several years worth of wars throughout the middle-east "World War III" everyone is waiting for when WWIII is going to start. Who's to say what Western powers have done to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and others isn't World War III?
Politics is always a dirty business--it's a human construct. Those are messy.
It reminds me of this video I recently came across-- it's a cute little song about how Jesus and his followers actually Occupy Jerusalem.
Anyways, here it is: http://youtu.be/a6akkb_afqs
Didn't the CIA also try to overthrow Cuba? I know at one time, the U.S. did control Cuba, and that's why they hate Castro so much. Che Guverra and his revolution. The CIA murdered him for freeing Cuba from their control. For years the U.S. tried to kill Castro and take back Cuba, and never did it. There's a reason Cuba absolutely hates the U.S. and that's why. They killed Che, and Cuba was controlled by the U.S. at one time, I always thought it was through the CIA.
Yeah it's hilarious how they created Al Quidda and the Taliban and make them out to be the bad guys. Yeah the bad guys they created all along.
Well done, Nice work. Thanks
Be careful they will term this as hate speech and you'll be in for a spell of correction.
PLEASE, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE VATICAN - PUT THE WORD "MASONIC FORCES IN THE VATICAN" AND NOT THE VATICAN ITSELF. DO NOT FORGET THAT CATHOLICS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HOSTAGE.
The Secret History
The Central Intelligence Agency typically fights distant enemies, but on May 21st its leaders were preoccupied with a local opponent. A few miles from the agency’s headquarters, which are in Langley, Virginia, former Vice-President Dick Cheney delivered an extraordinary attack on the Obama Administration’s emerging national-security policies. Cheney, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, accused the new Administration of making “the American people less safe” by banning brutal C.I.A. interrogations of terrorism suspects that had been sanctioned by the Bush Administration. Ruling out such interrogations “is unwise in the extreme,” Cheney charged. “It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness.”
Leon Panetta, the C.I.A.’s new director—and the man who bears much of the responsibility for keeping the country safe—learned the details of Cheney’s speech when he arrived in his office, on the seventh floor of the agency’s headquarters. An hour earlier, he had been standing at the side of President Barack Obama, who was giving a speech at the National Archives, in which he argued that America could “fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law.” In January, the Obama Administration banned the “enhanced” techniques that the Bush Administration had approved for the agency, including waterboarding and depriving prisoners of sleep for up to eleven days. Panetta, pouring a cup of coffee, responded to Cheney’s speech with surprising candor. “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue,” he told me. “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”
Panetta was also absorbing criticism from the left. The day before, a group of progressive human-rights advocates had been given an off-the-record briefing with Obama, where they discussed his plans for handling terrorism suspects some of the advocates were enraged at what they saw as a tacit continuation of the Bush approach. According to a participant, Obama warned the group that such comparisons were “not helpful.” Nevertheless, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, who also attended the briefing, went on to denounce the Administration for considering “preventive detention”—incarcerating certain terror suspects indefinitely, without trial. Obama’s position, Roth said, “mimics the Bush Administration’s abusive approach.”
Since January, the C.I.A. has become the focus of almost daily struggle, as Obama attempts to restore the rule of law in America’s fight against terrorism without sacrificing safety or losing the support of conservative Democratic and independent voters. So far, he has insisted on trying to recalibrate the agency’s policies without investigating past mistakes or holding anyone responsible for them. Caught in the middle is Panetta, who is seventy years old and has virtually no experience in the intelligence field. Indeed, his credentials for running the world’s foremost spy agency are so unlikely that when John Podesta, the head of Obama’s transition team, asked him to take the job he responded, “Are you sure?” Podesta assured Panetta that his outsider status was actually an advantage: “He said, ‘You don’t carry the scars of the past eight years. Besides, the President wants somebody who will talk straight to him on these issues.’ ”
Although Panetta served briefly in the military, half a century ago, his reputation has been built almost entirely on his mastery of domestic policy. For sixteen years, he was a Democratic congressman from his home town, Monterey, California. In 1989, he became the chairman of the House Budget Committee, making him a natural choice as President Bill Clinton’s first budget director. In 1994, he became Clinton’s chief of staff.
Panetta, the son of Italian immigrants, grew up washing dishes in his parents’ restaurant. He is disarmingly forthright, with an easy laugh he is also a stern disciplinarian and a workaholic. Colleagues say that Panetta, who attends Mass regularly, can be principled to the point of rigidity. It was partly Panetta’s rectitude that got him the C.I.A. job. During the Bush years, he decried the country’s loss of moral authority in a blunt essay for Washington Monthly last year, he declared that Americans had been transformed “from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers.” He concluded, “We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.”
Panetta’s impassioned essay unexpectedly became an asset during the Obama transition, after John Brennan—the initial candidate for C.I.A.director—was pressured to withdraw. Critics accused Brennan, who had been a top agency official during the Bush years, of complicity with the torture program. (A friend of Brennan’s from his C.I.A. days complained to me, “After a few Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear who write blogs voiced objections to Brennan, the Obama Administration pulled his name at the first sign of smoke, and then ruled out a whole class of people: anyone who had been at the agency during the past ten years couldn’t pass the blogger test.”)
Panetta had one other strong qualification: he was close to Rahm Emanuel, the new chief of staff. During the Clinton Administration, Emanuel, serving as the White House political director, was suspected by former First Lady Hillary Clinton and others of leaking information, and was very nearly fired. Emanuel entered what he calls his “wilderness period.” When Panetta became chief of staff, however, he reinstated Emanuel as a top aide. “I thought he had a lot of street smarts and good political sense,” Panetta told me.
In 1994, Panetta discovered, to his dismay, that the President had quietly turned to Dick Morris, a political consultant with a dubious ethical reputation. Harold Ickes, a former White House aide, recalls Panetta walking the halls late one night and saying that he needed a shower after attending a meeting with Morris. Later, a tabloid newspaper reported that Morris had been meeting with a prostitute in a nearby Washington hotel. In 1997, Panetta left the White House, by mutual agreement he and his wife, Sylvia, founded the nonpartisan Panetta Institute for Public Policy, in Northern California. In January, 1998, it was revealed that Clinton had conducted an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky—Panetta’s former intern. An associate described Panetta then as “very disappointed in Bill Clinton, because of Monica Lewinsky. He saw him as a man with no personal discipline.”
Eleven years later, Barack Obama called Panetta for advice on who might make a good chief of staff. Panetta recommended Emanuel, telling him that “Rahm knows the Hill, he certainly knows the White House, and he’s got the tough side” necessary for the job. In January, Emanuel recommended Panetta for the C.I.A. post. Emanuel said of Panetta, “Leon has great judgment, a great compass. He’s a great manager, and he’s trusted by both parties.” (Panetta was a Republican until 1971.) Some former C.I.A. officers, such as Tyler Drumheller, who retired in 2005 as the head of clandestine operations in Europe, welcome the choice. “It’s not such a bad thing to have a powerful guy with access to the President,” he told me. Panetta, he predicted, “will restore the integrity of the intelligence process. After what we’ve been through on Iraq and torture allegations, that’s a big deal.”
Michael Waldman, who was President Clinton’s chief speechwriter, and who now runs the Brennan Center for Justice, at the New York University School of Law, describes Panetta as “one of the more honorable, decent, and principled people in government,” but considers it “amazing that he was such an outspoken critic” of the agency. Given Panetta’s reputation for integrity, and the C.I.A.’s central role in the interrogations scandal, Waldman wondered, “can he ride the tiger without being eaten?” He added, “An agency like that can turn on a director. That’s the challenge: he’s got to both lead it and reform it.”
The record of outsiders taking over the C.I.A. is mixed. John McCone, a California shipping magnate who ran the agency in the Kennedy and Johnson years, is often cited as being among the most successful directors having been trained as a mechanical engineer, he was skilled at assessing threats posed by both conventional and nuclear weapons. But other outsiders have been met with intense hostility. James Schlesinger was named C.I.A. director by President Richard Nixon after heading the Atomic Energy Commission. Given instructions to “get rid of the clowns,” Schlesinger dismissed or forced into retirement more than five hundred analysts and a thousand clandestine officers. He faced death threats, and his tenure lasted six months. In 1995, President Clinton appointed John Deutch, who had previously served at the Pentagon. Deutch tried to improve the oversight of clandestine operatives after evidence surfaced that an agent in Guatemala had covered up two murders. Deutch was reviled by many operatives, and he left the agency after eighteen months. Eventually, he was accused of mishandling classified documents and stripped of his security clearance. “You pick on the C.I.A. at your own peril,” Michael Waldman says.
Nevertheless, many critics believe that the agency must reckon with the legacy of the Bush era. In the past few years, irrefutable evidence has emerged that after 9/11 the agency lost its moral bearings. A confidential Red Cross report has come into public view, along with formerly classified government documents, leaving no doubt that the agency subjected scores of terror suspects to prolonged physical and psychological cruelty. Officers shackled prisoners for weeks in contorted positions chained them to the ceiling wearing only diapers exploited their phobias propelled them head first into walls. At least three prisoners died.
Torture is a felony, and is sometimes treated as a capital crime. The Convention Against Torture, which America ratified in 1994, requires a government to prosecute all acts of torture failure to do so is considered a breach of international law. The issue of torture assumed symbolic importance during the 2008 campaign, and when Obama took office many of his liberal supporters expected him to hold the perpetrators of abuse accountable. Democratic leaders in Congress pushed particularly hard for action. Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had investigated the military’s role in detention and interrogation abuse but was kept by his committee’s limited jurisdiction from investigating the C.I.A. he urged the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, to open an inquiry, saying, “There needs to be an accounting of torture in this country.” Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, argued for the creation of an independent “truth commission,” which could grant immunity to witnesses—thus helping to insulate the Obama Administration from charges that it was exploiting the torture issue for partisan gain.
The C.I.A.’s role in providing misleading intelligence about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has also provoked calls for reform. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the new chairman of the Intelligence Committee, told me, “There’s no vote that I regret more than the vote to authorize war with Iraq” her vote was based on intelligence that she describes as “flat wrong.” Feinstein went on, “I am absolutely determined to reform the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence.”
“For God’s sake, have some populist rage.”
As soon as Obama took office, he overturned most aspects of the Bush Administration’s interrogation policy. He issued an executive order banning inhumane treatment of prisoners by any government officials, and one closing the C.I.A.’s network of secret “black site” prisons, which stretched from Poland to Thailand. He also vowed to close the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where fourteen former C.I.A. prisoners are being held. But Obama’s message has been uncharacteristically muddled on the question of accountability. He has said that Attorney General Holder should be the one to decide whether to take criminal action he has also said that he would support further congressional investigation, as long as it was done in a bipartisan fashion. At the same time, he has signalled that he has no appetite for “looking backwards,” and in late April, during a private White House meeting with congressional leaders, he rejected the idea of an outside truth commission. In the meantime, Republicans have seized the political initiative, expressing grave concern about the plans to close Guantánamo and transfer the prisoners to U.S. facilities.
Tim Weiner, the author of “Legacy of Ashes,” a recent history of the C.I.A., says that Panetta is facing a series of “unappetizing choices.” Weiner believes that the country is in a period similar to the Watergate era, when a series of disturbing state secrets—such as the existence of the Phoenix Program, a C.I.A.-supported initiative, in which the South Vietnamese were alleged to have tortured civilians—spilled out. Speaking of Panetta, he said, “It can’t be comfortable for a man who said, ‘This is un-American,’ to be put in the position of saying, ‘Well, we hold no one accountable.’ ”
Panetta, whose conversation with me at C.I.A. headquarters was his first lengthy interview on the topic of abusive interrogations, said that when he took over the agency he “wanted to be damn sure” that there was nobody on the payroll who should be prosecuted for torture or related crimes. He asked John Helgerson, then the C.I.A.’s inspector general, to conduct a review. In theory, the inspector general is politically independent, and therefore able to render unbiased judgments. In 2004, Helgerson had written a classified report on the C.I.A.’s secret detention-and-interrogation program, in which he questioned both the legality and the effectiveness of the agency’s brutally coercive techniques. Panetta cited Helgerson’s “credibility” as a reason to trust his assessment. According to Panetta, Helgerson, who is not a lawyer, assured him that no officer still at the agency had engaged in actions that went beyond the legal boundaries as they were understood during the Bush years. Helgerson, who retired from the agency in May, says he told Panetta only that he was not aware of any cases that merited prosecution, though “continuing work was being done.”
Panetta told me, “I’m going to give people the benefit of the doubt. . . . If they do the job that they’re paid to do, I can’t ask for a hell of a lot more.” His words echo those of President Obama, who on April 16th promised immunity from prosecution to any C.I.A. officer who relied on the advice of legal counsel during the Bush years. Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel to the C.I.A., points out that this is a low standard, given that “what the Justice Department approved was outrageous.” For example, for more than a century the U.S. had prosecuted waterboarding as a serious crime, and a ten-year prison sentence was issued as recently as 1983. Indeed, the memos authorizing interrogators to torment prisoners clashed so glaringly with international and U.S. law that some of them were later withdrawn by lawyers in Bush’s own Justice Department.
Smith, who has advised Obama informally on how to handle the C.I.A.’s legacy of abuse, thinks that prosecutions are not politically viable at this point, and would in any case be unfair to officers who thought they were adhering to the law. And many Republicans, from Newt Gingrich to John McCain, have argued that pressing charges against government officials would threaten morale and inhibit risk-taking at a time when the agency faces wars on two fronts and a continuing threat from Al Qaeda. The Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe disagrees. “It’s hard not to do something to those who performed the act,” he says. “It’s not beyond the pale to imagine that even people armed with legal opinions might be held legally responsible for violating the criminal law in the area of torture.”
Panetta told me, “Frankly, I didn’t support these methods that were used, or the legal justification for why they did it. . . . I also believed if I were to take this job it was about dealing with the threats that are out there, and trying to really bring the C.I.A. into a new chapter.” He said that once he felt confident that there was no criminal liability inside the agency he “didn’t want to spend a lot of time dealing with the past and what mistakes were made.”
It turns out, however, that Panetta initially supported the creation of a truth commission. “I’m not big on commissions,” Panetta told me. “On the other hand, I could see that it might make some sense, frankly, to appoint a high-level commission, with somebody like Sandra Day O’Connor, Lee Hamilton—people like that.” The appeal was that Obama could delegate to others the legal problems stemming from Bush Administration actions, allowing him to focus on his ambitious political agenda. “In the discussion phase”—early in the spring, before Obama decided the issue—“I was for it,” Panetta said. “Because every time a question came up, you could basically say, ‘The commission, hopefully, is looking at this.’ ” But by late April Obama had vetoed the idea, fearing that it would look vindictive and, possibly, inflame his predecessor. “It was the President who basically said, ‘If I do this, it will look like I’m trying to go after Cheney and Bush,’ ” Panetta said. “He just didn’t think it made sense. And then everybody kind of backed away from it.”
Ken Gude, an associate director at the Center for American Progress, who specializes in national-security issues, and who has close ties to the White House, believes that Obama’s instinct, like Panetta’s, was to set up a truth commission of some sort. “I think the political staff walked it back,” he says. “They said it would be a distraction.” Obama’s political advisers dread any issue that could trigger a culture war and diminish his support among independent voters. They also see little advantage in picking a fight with the C.I.A. But the decision to discourage an accountability process, Gude says, has backfired. The Administration has lost control of the story, as revelations about C.I.A. misdeeds have continued to emerge through lawsuits and the press. “It’s now become the distraction they wanted to avoid,” Gude says. “The White House briefings have been dominated by questions about releasing documents and photos.” It’s understandable, he says, that Obama wouldn’t want to spend his energy on Bush’s mistakes. But, he warns, “they can’t leave the impression that they’re trying to cover it up.”
Panetta may not have scars from the past eight years, but he is surrounded by people who do. Some of his closest advisers have connections to the torture program. Panetta brought only one person with him to the agency: Jeremy Bash, the well-regarded former chief counsel to the House Intelligence Committee, who now serves as his chief of staff. Phil Trounstine, a California-based political consultant and analyst who has known Panetta for years, says of him, “Here’s a guy who has been very critical of the Bush world view, who has to enforce a new set of guidelines and policies by leading the same agency and the same people as in the past.”
A.E.G. C.I - History
PURPOSE: The purpose for maintaining the NCIC system is to provide a computerized database for ready access by a criminal justice agency making an inquiry and for prompt disclosure of information in the system from other criminal justice agencies about crimes and criminals. This information assists authorized agencies in criminal justice and related law enforcement objectives, such as apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals described in the system.
ACCESS CONSTRAINTS: All records in NCIC are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. These safeguards include restricting access to those with a need to know to perform their official duties, and using locks, alarm devices, passwords, and/or encrypting data communications.
USE CONSTRAINTS: Users of the NCIC system will be restricted to only those privileges necessary to perform an authorized task(s).
AGENCY PROGRAM: The FBI is authorized to acquire, collect, classify and preserve identification, criminal identification, crime, and other records and to exchange such information with authorized entities.
SOURCES OF DATA: Data contained in NCIC is provided by the FBI, federal, state, local and foreign criminal justice agencies, and authorized courts.
The most recent iteration of NCIC became operational on July 11, 1999 at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. A recent hardware upgrade to the NCIC system is responsible for this significant improvement in performance.
Categories of individuals covered by the system:
Categories of records in the system:
Authority for maintenance of the system: The system is established and maintained in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 534 Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1973, Pub. L. 92-544, 86 Stat. 1115, Securities Acts Amendment of 1975, Pub. L. 94-29, 89 Stat. 97 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 (e). Exec. Order No. 10450, 3 CFR (1974).
Purpose(s): The purpose for maintaining the NCIC system of record is to provide a computerized data base for ready access by a criminal justice agency making an inquiry and for prompt disclosure of information in the system from other criminal justice agencies about crimes and criminals. This information assists authorized agencies in criminal justice objectives, such as apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals described in the system.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: Data in NCIC files is exchanged with and for the official use of authorized officials of the Federal Government, the States, cities, penal and other institutions, and certain foreign governments. The data is exchanged through NCIC lines to Federal criminal justice agencies, criminal justice agencies in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Possessions and U.S. Territories. Additionally, data contained in the various "want files," i.e., the stolen vehicle file, stolen license plate file, stolen gun file, stolen article file, wanted person file, securities file, boat file, and missing person data may be accessed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Criminal history data is disseminated to non-criminal justice agencies for use in connection with licensing for local/state employment or other uses, but only where such dissemination is authorized by Federal or state statutes and approved by the Attorney General of the United States.
Data in NCIC files, other than the information described in "Categories of records in the system: I, J, K, M, N, and O," is disseminated to (1) a nongovernmental agency subunit thereof which allocates a substantial part of its annual budget to the administration of criminal justice, whose regularly employed peace officers have full police powers pursuant to state law and have complied with the minimum employment standards of governmentally employed police officers as specified by state statute (2) a noncriminal justice governmental department of motor vehicle or driver's license registry established by a statute, which provides vehicles registration and driver record information to criminal justice agencies (3) a governmental regional dispatch center, established by a state statute, resolution, ordinance or Executive order, which provides communications services to criminal justice agencies and (4) the national Automobile Theft Bureau, a nongovernmental nonprofit agency which acts as a national clearinghouse for information on stolen vehicles and offers free assistance to law enforcement agencies concerning automobile thefts, identification and recovery of stolen vehicles.
Disclosures of information from this system, as described above, are for the purpose of providing information to authorized agencies to facilitate the apprehension of fugitives, the location of missing persons, the location and/or return of stolen property, or similar criminal justice objectives.
Information on missing children, missing adults who were reported missing while children, and unidentified living and deceased persons may be disclosed to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The NCMEC is a nongovernmental, nonprofit, federally funded corporation, serving as a national resource and technical assistance clearinghouse focusing on missing and exploited children. Information is disclosed to NCMEC to assist it in its efforts to provide technical assistance and education to parents and local governments regarding the problems of missing and exploited children, and to operate a nationwide missing children hotline to permit members of the public to telephone the Center from anywhere in the United States with information about a missing child.
In addition, information may be released to the news media and the public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the member's behalf whom the member or staff requests the information on behalf of and at the request of the individual who is the subject of the record and,
To the National Archives and Records Administration and the General Services Administration in records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2904 and 2906.
System Maintenance Policies
Storage: Information maintained in the NCIC system is stored electronically for use in a computer environment.
Retrievability: On line access to data in NCIC is achieved by using the following search descriptors:
Safeguards: Data stored in the NCIC is documented criminal justice agency information and access to that data is restricted to duly authorized criminal justice agencies. The following security measures are the minimum to be adopted by all criminal justice agencies having access to the NCIC.
Interstate Identification Index (III) File. These measures are designed to prevent unauthorized access to the system data and/or unauthorized use of data obtained from the computerized file.
1. Computer Center. a. The criminal justice agency computer site must have adequate physical security to protect against any unauthorized personnel gaining access to the computer equipment or to any of the stored data. b. Since personnel at these computer centers can have access to data stored in the system, they must be screened thoroughly under the authority and supervision of an NCIC control terminal agency. (This authority and supervision may be delegated to responsible criminal justice agency personnel in the case of a satellite computer center being serviced through a state control terminal agency.) This screening will also apply to non-criminal justice maintenance or technical personnel. c. All visitors to these computer centers must be accompanied by staff personnel at all times. d. Computers having access to the NCIC must have the proper computer instructions written and other built-in controls to prevent criminal history data from being accessible to any terminals other than authorized terminals. e. Computers having access to the NCIC must maintain a record of all transactions against the criminal history file in the same manner the NCIC computer logs all transactions. The NCIC identifies each specific agency entering or receiving information and maintains a record of those transactions. This transaction record must be monitored and reviewed on a regular basis to detect any possible misuse of criminal history data. f. Each State Control terminal shall build its data system around a central computer, through which each inquiry must pass for screening and verification. The configuration and operation of the center shall provide for the integrity of the data base.
2. Communications: a. Lines/channels being used to transmit criminal history information must be dedicated solely to criminal justice, i.e., there must be no terminals belonging to agencies outside the criminal justice system sharing these lines/channels. b. Physical security of the lines/channels must be protected to guard against clandestine devices being utilized to intercept or inject system traffic.
3. Terminal Devices Having Access to NCIC: a. All agencies having terminals on this system must be required to physically place these terminals in secure locations within the authorized agency. b. The agencies having terminals with access to criminal history must screen terminal operators and restrict access to the terminal to a minimum number of authorized employees. c. Copies of criminal history data obtained from terminal devices must be afforded security to prevent any unauthorized access to or use of the data. d. All remote terminals on NCIC III will maintain a manual or automated log of computerized criminal history inquiries with notations of individuals making requests for records for a minimum of one year.
Retention and disposal: Unless otherwise removed, records will be retained in files as follows:
System manager(s) and address: Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover Building, 10th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535.
Notification procedure: Same as the above.
Record access procedures: It is noted the Attorney General has exempted this system from the access and contest procedures of the Privacy Act. However, the following alternative procedures are available to requester. The procedures by which computerized criminal history record information about an individual may be obtained by that individual are as follows:
If an individual has a criminal record supported by fingerprints and that record has been entered in the NCIC III file, criminal history record information, it is available to that individual for review, upon presentation of appropriate identification and in accordance with applicable State and Federal administrative and statutory regulations. Appropriate identification includes being fingerprinted for the purpose of insuring that the individual is who the individual purports to be. The record on file will then be verified through comparison of fingerprints.
Procedure: 1. All requests for review must be made by the subject of the record through a law enforcement agency which has access to the NCIC III File. That agency within statutory or regulatory limits can require additional identification to assist in securing a positive identification.
2. If the cooperative law enforcement agency can make an identification with fingerprints previously taken which are on file locally and if the FBI identification number of the individual's record is available to that agency, it can make an on-line inquiry of NCIC to obtain the record on-line or, if it does not have suitable equipment to obtain an on-line response, obtain the record from Washington, DC by mail. The individual will then be afforded the opportunity to see that record.
3. Should the cooperating law enforcement agency not have the individual's fingerprints on file locally, it is necessary for that agency to relate the prints to an existing record by having the identification prints compared with those already on file in the FBI or possibly in the State's central identification agency.
Contesting record procedures: The Attorney General has exempted this system from the contest procedures of the Privacy Act. Under this alternative procedure described above under "Record Access Procedures," the subject of the requested record shall request the appropriate arresting agency, court, or correctional agency to initiate action necessary to correct any stated inaccuracy in subject's record or provide the information needed to make the record complete.
Record source categories: Information contained in the NCIC system is obtained from local, state, Federal and international criminal justice agencies.
The History of the C.I.P.
Limiting oneself to the realm of arms, it is possible to say that the origins of "Proof" go back to the time when arms were first made in the 13th to 15th centuries. Proof was then made at the request of clients who wished to be protected by guarantees. The level of Proof depended on the quality of the product, which is why one had "half proof", "proof", and "fully proofed".
Firearms, which were created in the 14th Century, brought with them the question of the safety of those using them. It is generally admitted that the first artillery gun crews were convicts. It was then common to Proof artillery pieces - always at the clients request - by using loads greater than normal.
In fact the reputation of the Liege arms industry goes back to the 16th century and is primarily based on the manufacture of hand held firearms. It is logical that the Proofing of artillery pieces led to similar Proof of hand held firearms. Thus there were, at Liege, teams of specialists - Proof men - who, at the request of buyers, Proofed firearms. In those days, we believe that quantities of firearms avoided Proof, particularly those that were less well made.
After various appeals about the quality of arms made in the Principality of Liege, Prince-Bishop Maximilian of Bavaria decreed on 10 May 1672 that the Proofing of artillery was obligatory. Such Proof had to be carried out by a certified Proofer and the Proof Mark of the City of Liege " Le Perron" was stamped upon the weapon after acceptance.
The law of 10th May 1672 is considered as the birth of the Proofing of firearms at Liege. In 1689, Prince-Bishop Maximilian of Bavaria issued an edict about the safety of powder depots and reinforced the conditions of Proof for firearms. The object of this edict was announced as “for the good of the trade and the safety of the user" - in other words, for the renown of the Liege arms industry. .
The principality of Liege was annexed in 1795 by the French Republic after the revolution of 1789. The Proofing of Firearms was aligned with the rules imposed by Napoleons decree of 14th December 1810.
This decree fixed the Proof procedure as well as the working methods of the Proof Houses of the whole French Empire. Each town in the Empire which produced firearms had to have a single Proof Master. The Proof Master was chosen by the Prefect of the Department after presentation by the Mayor of 3 candidates proposed by the local gunmakers. The Prefect also nominated 6 assistants to help, in pairs, in the Proof work.
The authority of the Proof House was no longer limited to firearms made in Liege, but extended to the whole country, so it was normal that Belgian legislation, after 1830, ruled that the Proof Master was nominated by the King (no longer by the Prefect!) upon presentation by the Governor (no longer the Mayor) of 3 candidates proposed by the gunmakers. The 6 assistants are still nominated by the Governor (Prefect) and they are not only obliged to assist Proof but also the law requires that they should research methods for improvements in the Proofing of firearms. Only the role of the Mayor (Burgomeister) has been modified as he became, by law, the President of the administration body.
The 14th December 1810 is therefore an important date for the Proof House. Then in 1888 the law gave the Proof House independent legal status and recognised it as the Owner of its buildings. It also gave the Director of Police the responsibility of monitoring the trade in firearms throughout Belgium.
History of Wireless Technologies
Whenever you share pictures or data through Bluetooth or use Wi-Fi connection to make your video conferences more clear and vivid, you feel each time the benefits of wireless technologies. It is that technological advancement which has given speed to our life. All of us get huge advantages of wireless technologies, but very few of you know about the background of this high-fi invention. Today, we will talk about the history of wireless technology which will really interest you to use it more.
The Initial Stage- Names Associated with It
You will be surprised to know that the history of wireless technology has dated back to 19 th century. Primarily, the credit goes to Michael Faraday as he is responsible for the invention of electromagnetic induction. Later, James Maxwell gave a shape to this invention by coming up with Maxwell’s Equation and finally, the credit goes to Guglielmo Marconi who developed the first wireless telegraph system in 1896.
We know the key function of wireless technology is to set wireless communication through which sender can send information to several receivers who are not connected with him through any electric connector. The invention of Marconi established the way of this advanced though as he was the first who sent awireless signal more than one and a half miles. His message traveled 6 kilometers, and it was “Are You Ready?” People take few decades to get ready and walk on his path that he showed much earlier.
Importance of Two Years- 1946 and 1947
While discussing history, you have to concentrate on the timelines to keep the pace of the incidents. Due to the invention of electromagnetic waves, the radio services were started full on. Soon, scientists started to think about the possibilities of inventing devices which are based on automatic domestic microcontroller.
If you concentrate on the years that are mentioned, you will get to know that these years were very important in the history of world politics. The 2 nd World War has just ended up, and the whole world is getting freedom from colonial bondage. Under such circumstances, it became very important to communicate with each other faster. On that note, the first American Commercial Mobile Radiotelephone services were introduced to private customers in the year 1946, on June 17. The FCC granted Southwestern Bell the radiotelephone licenses.
Invention can’t be stopped there only. In the next year, in 1947, three scientists (John Bardeen, William Shockley, and Walter Brattain) joined hands to invent the transistor. It makes possible to bridge a connection between communication and computer.
The Birth of Wi-Fi
In 1962, the first communication satellite, Telstar, was launched. Before that, the TV shows and other communication were done by microwave towers. But, now, the limit is over thesea. Soon, in the year 1968, the ARPANET was developed by the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency. It was the predecessors of present day internet.
1979 was a crucial year when the first automatic cellular network was developed. People get one step closer to the advent of Wi-Fi network.
Finally, it was the year, 1997, when the Wi-Fi was first launched and delivered by a committee 802.11. While setting up the WLAN, the name of the setting standards was IEEE802.11.
Scholarship Rejection Letter: Guide and Templates
One of the most important things many prospective students strive to obtain is a scholarship. It provides them with financial support and assistance for their studies. In general, the scholarship follows specific laws that are subjective to the scholarship offering organization. A student’s application letter may be accepted or denied depending on the conditions set by an agency or institution.
A rejection letter is a formal letter that conveys a message to the receiver informing him that they have not been selected. It can be a rejection for a submission or specific position that they had applied to be selected for, currently.
With the ever-growing list of students applying for scholarships, not all can be admitted into the limited available slots in different learning institutions. A scholarship rejection letter is informed to those whose application is declined for not meeting the specified requirements. For it to dampen the scholar’s spirit, the letter should be written in the most respectful and motivating way.
The decision to refuse the request for a scholarship should be well thought out and explained in a letter to ensure that the applicant knows why his application was rejected.
Some of the reason why you should write a rejection letter is:
- It is the most systematic and professional way of telling the applicant about the status of their application.
- It clarifies the applicant as to where they went wrong and which requirements they did not follow.
- It also provides the applicant with meaningful feedback about the areas that need to be improvised for their potential applications for scholarships.
A scholarship request can be rejected for several different reasons depending on the institution’s institution and requirements to avail of a scholarship. The scholarship application may be get denied if the applicant cannot meet the scholarship’s appropriate requirements, based on the institution’s terms or the information sent by the student for the scholarship was incomplete.
It can also get declined if the applicant was unable to complete the application within the given deadline. In some cases, it may be that the application submitted was not acceptable as the supporting documents submitted by the applicant were not satisfactory.
An acceptance or rejection letter must include all the essential elements of formal writing. It must consist of all the minute details so that there is no confusion or misunderstanding.
The structure is as follows:
Itis placed in the upper left or upper right.
All the information of the institution that is sending the letter must be placed un the beginning so that the applicant can identify who the issuer is.
A cordial greeting, written formally, can make an acceptance or rejection letter look like a well-founded response, even when it is a denial. Address the applicant with “Dear,” followed by the name of the applicant.
Full name of the receiver
The applicant who receives the letter must feel that it was taken into account, even if it is for a rejection, and there should be no room for confusion.
Body of the letter
In the first paragraph, provide yourself and the institution’s name. Also, note the type of scholarship you are providing to eligible individuals. In the next paragraph, tell the applicant why their application has been denied. Soften the blow with soft phrases, like “unfortunately” or “We are sorry to say.” These sentences show the applicant that the rejection decision was not easy to make. The formal language also adds an air of courtesy, which reduces the emotional effect of rejection. For example, your letter could say: “We will not move forward with your application” or “Your application did not make it to the next round.”
Closing or conclusion
Closing or conclusion is the last part of the letter it is where you will have the opportunity to show cordiality to the reader. Here you can also add remarks that encourage the student to reapply or apply later. If you had a large number of applicants, you could also mention the candidate pool’s competitiveness. Adding this additional explanation (“It was a difficult choice due to many applicants”) makes the rejection feel less personal. Ending the rejection letter on a positive note is critical. You want to make a good impression on applicants during this final step, so they are more likely to reconnect in the future. Closing on a short general note of “good luck” is a kind and cheerful ending to your letter.
Contact information is necessary to enter the information to have contact with the institution.
In the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington, DC, sits a hilltop overlooking the Potomac River and the monuments of our nation&rsquos capital. Potomac Hill, as it is now called, was deeded to the United States government in 1791 and has since served our nation and the world as the site of major advancements in science, medicine, and technology. It is where the science of oceanography was born, where the moons of Mars were discovered, and where the underwater path of the first transatlantic cable was plotted. It also played a key role in the Civil War, the development of modern medicine, and the evolution of America&rsquos foreign intelligence operations. The Potomac Hill campus totals 11.8 acres, consisting of two adjoining historic parcels known as the Potomac Annex (to the east) and Navy Hill (to the west).
Between 1844 and 1893, the first United States Naval Observatory operated on the Potomac Annex property before moving to its present location at Observatory Circle in northwest Washington, DC. In 1894, the old Naval Observatory building came to house the Naval Museum of Hygiene and later the Navy Medical School. Starting in 1903, construction of the Naval Medical Hospital took place behind the old observatory, including four pavilion-style wards, quarters for sick officers and nurses, a contagious disease building, and administrative offices. In 1942, the Navy transferred all medical services from the Potomac Annex to the new Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, and converted the vacated buildings into administrative offices for the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, which remained at this location for the next 70 years. The U.S. Navy transferred control of the Potomac Annex to the U.S. General Services Administration in 2012 through the Department of Defense&rsquos Base Realignment and Closure program.
Naval Observatory (1875) Personal Collection of Jan Herman.
In 1904, the Hygienic Laboratory of the U.S. Public Health and Marine Hospital Service began operations on the Navy Hill property in a newly constructed state-of-the-art facility, which was later demolished to accommodate the adjacent E Street Expressway. Over the next 30 years, three additional buildings were constructed to serve the quickly expanding laboratory, which evolved to become the National Institutes of Health. In 1938, the National Institutes of Health moved to a much larger campus in Bethesda, MD, creating a vacancy at Navy Hill that was filled in 1941 by the Office of the Coordinator of Information, which later became the Office of Strategic Services and then the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1961, the Central Intelligence Agency opened its headquarters facility in Langley, VA, but continued to use the Navy Hill facilities until 1987 when the U.S. General Services Administration obtained custody and control of the property. It was at that time that the U.S. Department of State began using the three existing buildings.
Naval Medical School (c. 1908), Library of Congress.
Today, the legacy of the Potomac Annex and Navy Hill properties will carry forward as a single campus&mdashPotomac Hill&mdashthrough the stewardship of the U.S. General Services Administration and the U.S. Department of State. Together, these agencies are charting a new course for the hilltop in Foggy Bottom through the preparation of the Potomac Hill Campus Master Plan. This plan will guide the future rehabilitation, renovation, and development of Potomac Hill into a world-class federal office campus envisioned to serve the long-term needs of the U.S. Department of State as an institution of American diplomacy.
The Potomac Annex Historic District, which includes all primary buildings on the Potomac Annex property, is listed on the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites and has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register as a historic district. The original Naval Observatory is a National Historic Landmark as designated by the National Park Service.
A Hilltop in Foggy Bottom
The Navy has created a four-part video titled, A Hilltop in Foggy Bottom, that tells the history of the old Naval Observatory and the Potomac Hill property (videos are on YouTube).
The shortcut for this page is www.gsa.gov/potomachill