Kevjn Lim is an independent writer and Middle East foreign policy analyst at Open Briefing: The Civil Society Intelligence Agency. In the latter half of 2013, he was Turkey representative for the Syria Needs Analysis Project (SNAP), covering the Syrian crisis in the northern governorates and Turkey. From 2007-2011, he served as delegate with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the Palestinian Territories, Sudan’s Darfur region, Iraq, Gaddhafi’s Libya and Afghanistan. He also taught modern languages (Hebrew, Arabic, French and Spanish) at both Trinity and Queens’ Colleges, University of Melbourne (2004-2006), and served as intelligence officer with the Singapore Armed Forces (2001-2004). Kevjn holds a BA and an Honours Degree (First Class) in political science and Jewish-Islamic studies from the University of Melbourne. He is currently doing postgraduate work in strategic studies. Among other languages, he is fluent in Arabic, Hebrew and Persian, as well as some Turkish, and is currently based in the Middle East.
I'm currently working on a chapter on how the assessment of OSINT has changed over time and I think you could provide me with some missing pieces of the puzzle given your expertise in this area and your work in promoting the use of Open Sources.
01 Firstly, from what I have gathered so far, the US attitude towards OSINT started to change with the recommendations made by the WMD Commission in 2005. Is this correct?
No, this is not correct. Although the WMD Commission enjoyed several people deeply familiar with OSINT, it followed from the 9/11 Commission Report that actually recommended an Open Source Agency (OSA), and the Aspin-Brown Commission Report in 1996 that stated that OSINT should be a top priority for funding and a top priority for DCI attention. All such recommendations are ignored. The Central Intelligence Agency, at the time of its inception the ONLY national intelligence agency, was created by President Harry Truman to be a central bureau for collating and making sense of all that had already been collected by others — e.g. the Department of State, the military services, labor attaches, etcetera. Cf. Harry Truman, “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence,” Washington Post, 22 December 1963, p. A11. From inception, the Presidential intent was to achieve strategic analytics using predominantly open sources and methods, as well as such signals or other secret information covertly acquired by others. CIA was never intended to become a spy agency or a covert action gorilla mounting secret wars, funding dictators, or subverting the media to present both the US and foreign publics with a menu of lies.
Click on Image to Enlarge
KEY POINT: The value of OSINT has never been in question. The absence of integrity in government has led to a loss of focus on definitions — what is intelligence, what is OSINT (versus information), who is responsible for doing OSINT, should government make decisions based on ethical evidence-based decision-support. At root, this question is about the soul of intelligence and the soul of the Republic. I trace the collapse of integrity in the US Government to the successful assassinations — and cover-ups — of John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, all by elements of the US Government acting in concert with Texas oil and New York money, as well as Cuban exiles and New Orleans criminal families. That was the point at which the US Government stopped representing the 99% and became a wholly-owned front for special interests — the 1%. That in turn has inspired me to recognize that the foundation for predominantly open intelligence (decision-support) with integrity leveraging OSINT is ruthless, pervasive, most secret counterintelligence focused on enemies of the state and the public interest — on multi-billion dollar a year traitors — not on small million and multi-million dollar a year criminals, which is where the FBI has chosen to focus while being complicit in ignoring high crimes in both the public and private sectors. Today the US has neither OSINT nor effective counterintelligence, and no substantive decision made by the Executive or Congress is actually based on intelligence with integrity.
Am quite happy to help you as very few really have a mastery of this emerging pillar of 21st Century intelligence. I am posting this answer at Phi Beta Iota to help others, and will gladly respond to any further questions you might have, respecting your individual privacy.
01) In identifying and discussing the mechanisms of contemporary terrorism (organisational system, communication, etc.) and establishing a scorecard for how each of the disciplines does against them, you will be severely handicapped because those who spend great sums on secret sources and methods will lie to themselves, to their policy masters, and to the public, in order to protect those budgets. In my experience, most terrorist events are false flag events organized by the Mossad, the CIA, the FBI, or the local national intelligence or security force, generally under the guise of a drill that has unwitting “patsies” — and of course labeling legitimate opposition and insurgent groups as “terrorists.”
The other problem is of course blatant dishonesty, where everyone in opposition to their government — including now US citizens — can be labeled a terrorist and killed without trial. We even have Senators who should know better talking about “so-called Americans” as if their citizenship were some how invalidated by opinion. At the same time, we have governments that make decisions based on bribes from the recipients of taxpayer money, rather than on the needs of the taxpayer, and secret intelligence really does not matter, except as a crutch to justify spending money in criminally insane ways.
Increasingly these days, I am getting thoughtful emails from people who really do want to fix this country rather than leverage ignorance for selfish gain. Here is the YouTube that helped start the conversation:
Below is a fine email with questions, and my answers. This is a good time for every citizen to be reflecting on INTEGRITY and what this means to how they should act in the near and mid-term. St.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Adam Dorwart <redacted> wrote:
Adam Dorwart
Hello Robert,
First let me introduce myself. My name is Adam Dorwart and I'm a politically active college student in southern California. I'm a Redditor and supporter of OWS. I recently came across your Election Reform Act of 2012 and have felt a strong impulse to spread its message as it deeply resonates with what I feel will fix our broken political system. In two days time I will be giving a speech at my college on Election Reform and I have a couple questions and comments for you related to your Act and problems our society faces.
What do you believe are the largest political issues that we currently face as a society relating to elections and voting?
