萨拉博士|美国国家安全局《信息自由法》回应揭露塞斯•里奇和阿桑奇/维基解密通信属于机密

2019年7月21日15:57:57萨拉博士|美国国家安全局《信息自由法》回应揭露塞斯•里奇和阿桑奇/维基解密通信属于机密已关闭评论 77412637字阅读42分7秒
摘要

美国国家安全局(National Security Agency)对《信息自由法案》(Freedom of Information Act,FOIA)的要求做出了回应。该法案涉及民主党全国委员会(Democratic National Committee)前成员赛斯•里奇(Seth Rich)与朱利安•阿桑奇(Julian Assange)。国家安全局发布了一份”Glomar 反应”,其中既不确认也不否认所要求的信息,因为这些信息是存在的,或者”不存在”是”适当保密的”。

萨拉博士|美国国家安全局《信息自由法》回应揭露塞斯•里奇和阿桑奇/维基解密通信属于机密

The National Security Agency has responded to a Freedom of Information Act(FOIA)request concerning direct communications between Seth Rich,a former staffer for the Democratic National Committee,and Julian Assange and/or Wikileaks.The NSA issued a"Glomar Response",where it chose to neither confirm nor deny the requested information due to its existence or"non-existence"being"properly classified".

美国国家安全局(National Security Agency)对《信息自由法案》(Freedom of Information ActFOIA)的要求做出了回应。该法案涉及民主党全国委员会(Democratic National Committee)前成员赛斯里奇(Seth Rich)与朱利安阿桑奇(Julian Assange)。国家安全局发布了一份"Glomar 反应",其中既不确认也不否认所要求的信息,因为这些信息是存在的,或者"不存在""适当保密的"

The NSA response reveals that communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks are subject to classification laws.Their release will have major national security implications that directly impact US Russia relations,and may facilitate disclosure of suppressed secret space program technologies.

美国国家安全局的回应显示,里奇与阿桑奇/维基解密之间的通信受到保密法的约束。他们的发布将对国家安全产生重大影响,直接影响到美俄关系,并可能促进被压制的秘密太空计划技术的披露。

I filed the FOIA request after communicating with Ty Clevenger,Esq.,who had on October 10,2017,filed an FOIA request regarding communications between Rich and Assange,along with many other individuals.In his original FOIA letter to the NSA,Clevenger requested:

20171010日,Esq.的泰·克莱文格就瑞奇和阿桑奇以及其他许多人之间的通信向我提交了信息自由法申请。在《信息自由法》给美国国家安全局的原始信件中,克莱文格要求:

All documents,records,or communications referencing or containing communications between Seth Rich and any of the following:Julian Assange,Wikileaks,Kim Dotcom,Aaron Rich,Shawn Lucas,Kelsey Mulka,Imran Awan,Abid Awan,Jamal Awan,Hina Alvi,Rao Abbas,and/or any person or entity outside of the United States.(pdf available here)

所有涉及或包含塞思·里奇与以下任何人之间通信的文件、记录或通信:朱利安·阿桑奇、维基解密、金姆·多特康姆、亚伦·里奇、肖恩·卢卡斯、凯尔西·穆尔卡、伊姆兰·阿万、阿比德·阿万、贾马尔·阿万、希娜·阿尔维、拉奥·阿巴斯和/或任何美国境外的个人或实体。(pdf 格式)

The NSA wrote a final response to Clevenger on October 4,2018:

2018104日,美国国家安全局给克莱文格写了最后一封回信:

Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA.Fifteen documents(32 pages)responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526.These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph©of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET.(pdf available here)

您的请求已根据《信息自由法》的规定得到处理。根据《信息自由法》的要求,本机构审查了十五份文件(32),发现这些文件目前根据第13526号行政命令进行了适当的分类。这些文件符合第1.4节第项规定的分类标准,仍然属于绝密和机密。(pdf 格式)

The Clevinger's FOIA request and the NSA's response was the subject of anarticle by Mark McCarty published by Medium.com on April 19,2019,where he analyzed its consequences for those claiming Rich was the real source of the DNC emails being handed over to Wikileaks.Unfortunately,McCarty's article was taken down by Medium.com and he was removed as an author from the site in what appears to be a flagrant case of censorship.

2019419日,medium 网站发表了马克·麦卡蒂的一篇文章,主题是克莱文杰的《信息自由法》要求和国家安全局的回应,他分析了这篇文章对那些声称里奇是民主党全国委员会电子邮件被交给维基解密的真正来源的人的影响。不幸的是,McCarty 的文章被 medium 网站撤下,他作为作者的身份也被从网站上移除,这似乎是一个明目张胆的审查案例。

萨拉博士|美国国家安全局《信息自由法》回应揭露塞斯•里奇和阿桑奇/维基解密通信属于机密

I wrote an article on April 25,2019 commenting on the issues raised in McCarty's article and NSA's response to Clevinger's FOIA request.Of particular interest was what a prominent NSA whistleblower,William Binney,had to say about the NSA’s response:

2019425日,我写了一篇文章,评论麦卡蒂文章中提出的问题以及国家安全局对克莱文杰信息自由法要求的回应。特别令人感兴趣的是美国国家安全局一位著名的告密者威廉·宾尼对国家安全局的回应所说的话:

"Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange.

"·克莱文格从国家安全局获取信息,要求提供任何涉及塞斯·里奇和朱利安·阿桑奇的数据。

And they responded by saying we've got 15 files,32 pages,but they're all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification,and therefore you can't have them.

他们回应说,我们有15份文件,32页,但它们都是根据13526号行政命令分类的,因此你不能拥有它们。

That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange.I mean,that's the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between people and devices."

这说明国家安全局有塞斯·里奇和朱利安·阿桑奇之间的通讯记录。我的意思是,这是国家安全局唯一从事的业务——复制人与设备之间的通信。"

In closely examining Clevinger's request and the NSA's response,what is left unclear is exactly who Rich was communicating with that the 15 documents(32 pages)were referring to.

在仔细研究克莱文杰的要求和美国国家安全局的回应时,人们不清楚的是,这15份文件(32)指的到底是里奇与谁通信。

This was due to the initial FOIA request by Clevinger being very broad in scope since it asked for multiple individuals that Rich was communicating with in addition to Assange/Wikileaks.Basically,the NSA's response,as cited above,made it unclear whether the information it had concerned communications between Rich and Assange,or Rich and one of the other named parties.

这是因为克莱文杰最初提出的《信息自由法》要求的范围非常广泛,因为除了阿桑奇/维基解密之外,还要求里奇联系的多个人。基本上,国家安全局的回应,如上所述,使得它所掌握的信息不清楚是否与里奇和阿桑奇之间的通讯有关,还是与里奇和另一个有名的当事人之间的通讯有关。

In order to narrow the scope of the inquiry into Rich's communications,I filed my own FOIA request to the NSA on April 27,2019:

为了缩小对里奇通讯的调查范围,我在2019427日向国家安全局提交了自己的信息自由法申请:

I am researching the circumstances surrounding the death of Seth Conrad Rich("Seth Rich,born January 3,1968),who was murdered in the District of Columbia on July 10,2016.I request all documents,records,or correspondence referencing or containing communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange or Wikileaks.

我正在研究塞斯·康拉德·里奇("塞斯·里奇,生于196813)的死因,他于2016710日在哥伦比亚特区被谋杀。我要求所有的文件,记录,或者包含塞斯·里奇和朱利安·阿桑奇或维基解密之间通信的信件。

萨拉博士|美国国家安全局《信息自由法》回应揭露塞斯•里奇和阿桑奇/维基解密通信属于机密

Click image to enlarge.(p.2 is here)

点击图片放大。(p.2在此)

I received the following response by the NSA on May 1,2019.

我在201951日收到国家安全局的回复如下。

We have determined that the fact of the existence of non-existence of the materials you request is a currently and properly classified matter in accordance with Executive Order 13526,as set forth in Subparagraph(c)of Section 1.4.Thus,your request is denied pursuant to the first exemption of the FOIA which provides that FOIA does not apply to matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign relations and are,in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order."

我们已经确定,根据第1.4(c)分段所述的第13526号行政命令,你所要求的材料不存在这一事实是一个目前适当分类的问题。因此,根据《信息自由法》的第一项豁免,驳回了你的请求,该项豁免规定,《信息自由法》不适用于根据行政命令确定的标准具体授权为国防或对外关系保密的事项,事实上,根据这项行政命令对这些事项进行了适当的分类

Here is the relevant Section 1.4 referred to by the NSA with emphasis on subparagraph(c):

以下是消极安全保证提到的相关第1.4节,重点是(c)分段:

Sec.1.4.Classification Categories.Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order,and it pertains to one or more of the following:

1.4节。分类类别。不得考虑对信息进行分类,除非根据本命令第1.2节,可以合理地预计未经授权的信息披露会对国家安全造成可识别或可描述的损害,而且信息涉及下列一项或多项:

(a)military plans,weapons systems,or operations;
(b)foreign government information;
(c)intelligence activities(including covert action),intelligence sources or methods,or cryptology;
(d)foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States,including confidential sources;
(e)scientific,technological,or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f)United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g)vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems,installations,infrastructures,projects,plans,or protection services relating to the national security;or
(h)the development,production,or use of weapons of mass destruction.

(a)军事计划、武器系统或行动;

(b)外国政府情报;

(c)情报活动(包括秘密行动)、情报来源或方法或密码学;

(d)美国的对外关系或对外活动,包括机密来源;

(e)与国家安全有关的科学、技术或经济事项;

(f)美国政府保障核材料或设施的方案;

(g)与国家安全有关的系统、设施、基础设施、项目、计划或保护服务的脆弱性或能力;

(h)研制、生产或使用大规模毁灭性武器。

The NSA's response is known as a"Glomar Response",which is different from a regular denial of a request for official government records as explained by Nate Jones from Unredacted.com:

美国国家安全局的回应被称为"Glomar 回应"(Glomar Response),这与经常拒绝提供官方政府记录的请求不同,正如 unredacted 网站的内特琼斯(Nate Jones)解释的那样:

The Glomar Response is different than a regular FOIA denial—when an agency states that it has the records but that it will not release them.When an agency replies with a Glomar Response,it refuses even to admit that documents exist;this makes research(and the appeals process)much more difficult.

Glomar 反应不同于一般的《信息自由法》否认ーー当一个机构声称它有记录,但不会公布它们。当一个机构用 Glomar Response 回复时,它甚至拒绝承认文件的存在;这使得研究(和上诉过程)变得更加困难。

The NSA's decision of neither confirming nor denying the existence of direct communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks affirms that the NSA is unwilling to directly admit such correspondence exists and makes it difficult for researchers to reach a definitive answer.Nevertheless,what the NSA's response does reveal is that the alleged communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks are a matter of national security.

美国国家安全局决定既不确认也不否认里奇与阿桑奇/维基解密之间存在直接通信,这表明美国国家安全局不愿意直接承认这种通信的存在,这使得研究人员难以得出明确的答案。尽管如此,美国国家安全局的回应确实揭示出,所谓的里奇与阿桑奇/维基解密之间的通信事关国家安全。

The NSA response is a startingly admission given what has been previously learned about Rich's role in handing over the DNC emails to Assange and Wikileaks as discussed in my previous article on Rich.Basically,we know that law enforcement sources told journalists Seymour Hersh and Sean Hannity/Fox News that Rich was the source for the DNC party email links.

美国国家安全局的回应是一个令人吃惊的承认,考虑到我之前关于里奇的文章中所讨论的关于里奇在将民主党全国委员会的电子邮件交给阿桑奇和维基解密中所扮演的角色。基本上,我们知道执法部门的消息来源告诉记者 Seymour Hersh Sean hannity/fox NewsRich 是民主党全国委员会党派电子邮件链接的来源。

In addition,Binney was part of a group of former U.S.intelligence officers that wrote a reportreleased on July 24,2017 explaining why it was impossible for the DNC files to have been downloaded by online hackers,and the most likely explanation was an inside source with direct access to the DNC server who leaked the files through a thumb drive:

此外,宾尼是一群前美国情报官员中的一员,他们在2017724日发布了一份报告,解释了为什么 DNC 文件不可能被在线黑客下载,而最有可能的解释是一个内部人士通过拇指驱动器直接访问了 DNC 服务器,从而泄露了这些文件:

Forensic studies of"Russian hacking"into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5,2016,data was leaked(not hacked)by a person with physical access to DNC computer.After examining metadata from the"Guccifer 2.0"July 5,2016 intrusion into the DNC server,independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.

去年,针对"俄罗斯黑客"侵入民主党全国委员会(Democratic National Committee)电脑的法医研究显示,201675日,一名实际访问民主党全国委员会(DNC)电脑的人泄露了(而非黑客)数据。在检查了"Guccifer 2.0"201675日对 DNC 服务器的入侵元数据后,独立网络调查人员得出结论,一名内部人员将 DNC 数据复制到了外部存储设备上。

The NSA's responses to Clevinger and my FOIA requests take on even more significance given recent attempts to debunk any purported connection between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks.Michael Isikoff,writing for Yahoo News on July 9,2019,insisted that the Russians were the real source of the leak and not Rich:

鉴于最近有人试图揭穿里奇与维基解密(wikileaks)之间的所谓联系,美国国家安全局对克莱文杰和我的《信息自由法》(FOIA)请求的回应更具意义。201979日,为雅虎新闻撰稿的迈克尔·伊斯科夫坚持认为,俄罗斯人才是泄密的真正来源,而不是里奇:

Russian government-owned media organizations RT and Sputnik repeatedly played up stories that baselessly alleged that Rich,a relatively junior-level staffer,was the source of Democratic Party emails that had been leaked to WikiLeaks.It was an idea first floated by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,who on Aug.9,2016,announced a$20,000 reward for information about Rich's murder,saying—somewhat cryptically—that"our sources take risks."

俄罗斯政府拥有的媒体机构 RT Sputnik 多次发表报道,毫无根据地指控相对较低级别的员工里奇是向维基解密泄露民主党电子邮件的源头。维基解密(WikiLeaks)创始人朱利安阿桑奇(Julian Assange)最先提出了这个想法。201689日,阿桑奇宣布,如果提供有关里奇被谋杀的信息,将获得2万美元的奖金。阿桑奇略带神秘色彩地表示,"我们的线人会冒险。"

Many mainstream news sources ran with Isikoff's story which neglected to discuss Binney's intelligence assessment,the NSA FOIA responses,and what Seymour Hersh had been told about Rich being the source for the leak.It appeared that Isikoff's story was an attempt to get in front of a developing story stemming from Assange’s looming extradition to the US,and his expected testimony tying Rich to the DNC emails released by Wikileaks.

许多主流新闻来源报道伊斯科夫的故事,忽略了讨论宾尼的情报评估,国家安全局的《信息自由法》的回应,以及西摩·赫什被告知里奇是泄密者。看起来,伊斯科夫的故事是为了抢先报道阿桑奇即将被引渡到美国的事件,以及他预料之中的将里奇与维基解密公布的民主党全国委员会电子邮件联系起来的证词。

The conclusion that emerges from the NSA FOIA responses and what other researchers have revealed is that the Deep State has framed Russia for a domestic leak by a disgruntled DNC employee,Seth Rich.The Deep State's purpose was to undermine Trump's presidential campaign and his subsequent administration through concocted Russia collusion charges,and to impede meaningful cooperation between Trump and Putin on a host of global policy issues.

从美国国家安全局的《信息自由法》回应和其他研究人员揭露的结论是,深州陷俄罗斯于民主党全国委员会一名心怀不满的雇员 Seth Rich 的国内泄密事件中。"深州"的目的是通过炮制俄罗斯勾结的指控,破坏特朗普的总统竞选活动及其随后的政府,并阻碍特朗普和普京在一系列全球政策问题上进行有意义的合作。

One of these global policy areas concerns the official disclosure of exotic aerospace technologies secretly used by the US and Russia in their respective secret space programs,which I have described elsewhere.The disclosure of such technologies could do much to resolve global security and energy problems,but would have major repercussions for the petroleum and pharmaceutical industries that are dependent on antiquated fuel and medical technologies.

其中一个全球政策领域涉及到官方披露美国和俄罗斯在各自的秘密太空计划中秘密使用的外来航空航天技术,我在别处已经描述过了。披露这些技术可以大大有助于解决全球安全和能源问题,但会对依赖过时燃料和医疗技术的石油和制药工业产生重大影响。

What has clearly emerged since the DNC emails were leaked is that the mainstream news media,along with major social media companies such as Facebook,YouTube,Twitter,and Google,have all colluded to deceive the US and the global public over the real source of the leaked DNC emails.As the truth emerges about Rich being the true source for emails leaked by Wikileaks in 2016,the role and power of the Deep State in manipulating public opinion so brazenly for over two years is about to be exposed.This exposure will open the door for exotic technology disclosures that can revolutionize life on our planet.

自民主党全国委员会电子邮件被泄露以来,显而易见的是,主流新闻媒体,以及主要的社交媒体公司,如 FacebookYouTubeTwitter 和谷歌,都串通一气,在民主党全国委员会电子邮件泄露的真正来源问题上欺骗了美国和全球公众。随着里奇是2016年维基解密泄露的电子邮件的真正来源的真相浮出水面,两年多来深层国家如此肆无忌惮地操纵公众舆论的角色和权力即将被曝光。这种曝光将为那些可以彻底改变我们星球生活的奇异技术的披露打开大门。

来源:

https://www.exopolitics.org/nsa-foia-response-reveals-seth-rich-assange-wikileaks-communications-are-classified/

zhunbeizhuanbian
  • 本文由 发表于 2019年7月21日15:57:57
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均来自网络,转载请务必保留本文链接