Charles F. Swett
Allen L. Barker
[These are web references available about Charles F. Swett. Swett
was the author of the Pentagon's policy for non-lethal weapons. The
links and excerpts here should be seen as offering a window into the
Pentagon's non-lethal weapons program and internet strategy program
in the 1990s. Think of the mind control victims between the lines --
and that includes my own personal situation.]
------------------------------
21 July 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Draft Non-Lethal Weapons Policy
Attached is a draft DoD policy for non-lethal weapons. We are
distributing this draft broadly for information and comment.
Comments should be forwarded by 19 August to Mr. Charles Swett,
703-693-5208 (voice), or 703-693-0615 (fax).
http://www.heart7.net/mcf/mindnet/mn168.htm
[...]
* Interdiction in ambiguous situations - were we suspect that
activity inimical to U.S. interests is underway and would like
to take steps to frustrate it but where we may not have
convincing intelligence confirming our suspicions
* Highly specific attack - where the target is proximate to a
significant non-military asset that must not be damaged under
any circumstances, such as a religious, cultural, or
historical symbol
* Synergism - to accelerate and intensify the effects of lethal
measures, used in conjunction with non-lethal systems weapons
The term "adversary" is used above in it broadest sense,
including those who are not declared enemies but who are engaged
in activities we wish to stop. This policy does not preclude
legally authorized domestic use of non-lethal weapons by U.S.
military forces in support of law enforcement.
[...]
------------------------------
Strategic Assessment:
The Internet
Prepared by Mr. Charles Swett
Assistant for Strategic Assessment
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Low-Intensity Conflict
(Policy Planning)
Room 2B525, the Pentagon 703-693-5208 17 July 1995
http://www.fas.org/cp/swett.html
[...]
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT: THE INTERNET
Abstract
The political process is moving onto the Internet. Both within the
United States and internationally, individuals, interest groups,
and even nations are using the Internet to find each other, discuss
the issues, and further their political goals. The Internet has
also played an important role in recent conflicts. As a result,
overseas segments of the Internet can be a useful tool for DoD,
both for gathering and for disseminating information. By monitoring
public message traffic and alternative news sources from around the
world, early warning of impending significant developments could be
developed, in advance of more traditional means of indications and
warning. Commentary placed on the Internet by observers on the scene
of low-intensity conflicts overseas could be useful to U.S.
policymaking. During larger scale conflicts, when other conventional
channels are disrupted, the Internet can be the only available means
of communication into and out of the affected areas. Internet
messages originating within regions under authoritarian control
could provide other useful intelligence. Public messages conveying
information about the intent of overseas groups prone to disrupting
U.S. military operations can provide important counterintelligence.
The Internet could also be used offensively as an additional medium
in psychological operations campaigns and to help achieve
unconventional warfare objectives. Used creatively as an integral
asset, the Internet can facilitate many DoD operations and
activities.
[...]
The ability via the Internet to efficiently reach large numbers of
individuals who are potential political actors plays to the strengths
of special interest groups and political action committees. The Internet
is thus highly attractive to activists who value a populist approach
as opposed to a republican approach that emphasizes electing
representatives and influencing their positions. Examples of online
political activism abound:
[...]
Another, somewhat startling, example, is a message posted on the
Internet on December 16, 1994, calling for nationwide protests
against the Republican Party's Contract with America. The message
accuses the Contract with America of being, in effect, class war,
race war, gender war, and generational war, and urges recipients
to "mobilize thousands of demonstrations in local communities
across the nation," "fill the jails by engaging in acts of civil
disobedience," and engage in other disruptive actions (see
Appendix A for the full text of the message). Yet another
example is a message posted on the same date entitled, "Protest:
GOP '96," which begins the process of organizing mass protests
against the 1996 Republican National Convention in San Diego.
The message states (see Appendix B for full text):
[...]
Various fringe groups are beginning to exploit the Internet. These
include:
* "The National Alliance, a white supremacist organization that
circulated a missive on the Internet last month exhorting people
to oppose welfare mothers, homosexuals, Jews, illegal aliens and
'minority parasites"'
* "The Gay Agenda Resistance, 'dedicated to the struggle
against the sexual deviancy forces,' tells users they can aid the
anti-gay struggle 'by distributing our files far and wide through
cyberspace"'
* "The Michigan Militia Corps, a private group that is training
to combat what it sees as an inevitable takeover by federal armed
forces
* "The National Association for the Reform of Marijuana Laws"
* "Earth First, a loosely affiliated group of environmental
extremists"
* "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which is
preparing an online foray to promote its militant approach to
animal rights."[Sandberg]
According to the Wall Street Journal,
"Fringe groups are increasingly going online, gathering converts
and seeking validation on the Internet. The network's far-flung
links and low-cost communications are a boon to backwater groups
that can't afford to use direct mail to make their pitches... The
more a group is shut out of the mainstream, the more likely it is
to go online... The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which monitors hate
groups... has tracked about 250 hate groups in the U.S. and says
50 or more communicate online. Other experts believe the number
is considerably higher."[Sandberg]
Still other kinds of interest groups have moved online. Groups of conspiracy
theorists exchange e-mail explaining their often bizarre theories about
conspiracies conducted by the U.S. government in general and DoD in particular.
A much better organized group, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), has its own
computer network with agateway to the Internet. Much of the traffic on this
network refers to U.S. military operations that members believe relate to
investigations and cover-ups of UFO-related incidents, and other messages
contain details on MUFON's efforts to conduct surveillance of DoD
installations and to obtain information on UFOs that they believe exists
in classified form.
The relatively more advanced role being played by the Internet in domestic
U.S. politics provides a glimpse of what may happen in other nations in the
future. Their different political systems, however, may change the precise
nature of the Internet's role from what it is in the U.S., but its energizing
effect is likely to be universal.
[...]
Increasingly, officials in national governments, foreign military officers,
business persons, and journalists, are obtaining access to the Internet and
establishing individual e-mail addresses. There is even a commercial service
that will shortly offer access to an online database of the names,
organizational titles, phone/fax numbers, and Internet e-mail addresses of
virtually all government officials in all countries. Using this information,
it would be possible to employ the Internet as an additional medium for
Psychological Operations (Psyops) campaigns. E-mail conveying the U.S.
perspective on issues and events could be efficiently and rapidly
disseminated to a very wide audience.
The U.S. might be able to employ the Internet offensively to help achieve
unconventional warfare objectives. Information could be transmitted over
the Internet to sympathetic groups operating in areas of concern that allows
them to conduct operations themselves that we might otherwise have to send
our own special forces to accomplish. Although such undertakings would have
their own kinds of risks, they would have the benefit of reducing the physical
risks to our special forces personnel, and limiting the direct political
involvement of the United States since the actions we desire would be
carried out by indigenous groups.
[...]
------------------------------
CRYPT NEWSLETTER 44
August -- September 1997
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt/other/crpt44.htm
[...]
And if this is not sufficiently "mad scientist" to suit your fancy,
consider that U.S. News and World Report interviewed the Pentagon's
Charles Swett -- who is not a scientist -- but who nevertheless was
attributed by the publication to maintain that the military plans
"to conduct human testing with lasers and acoustics in the future
. . . and that the testing will be constrained and highly ethical."
If true, Crypt News poses these questions:
If the projects are classified in the Pentagon's black budget how can
it be assured that human testing will adhere to informed consent laws
and protocols for conducting research on human subjects? As an exercise,
review historical examples of unethical military testing of weapons on
human subjects -- for example: Japanese testing of microbial pathogens
on prisoners of war during World War II, U.S. military testing of poison
gas on soldiers during World War II, U.S. military testing of the
effects of atomic bomb detonations near troops in Operation Tumbler
Snapper (1952), Operation Upshot Knothole (1953), the Smoky Test Shot
(1957) and the Galileo Test Shot (1957).
And if a soldier or volunteer is injured or killed while being a test
subject for such a classified research project, what assurances exist
-- other than the blandishments of Pentagon-Charles-Swett-types -- that
proper scientific overview by the unbiased was conducted, or that his
family will even be able to find out what occurred during a particular
experiment?
[...]
------------------------------
Wonder Weapons
http://www.datafilter.com/mc/c_usNewsWonderWeapons.html
July 7, 1997
The Pentagon's quest for nonlethal arms is amazing. But is it
smart?
BY DOUGLAS PASTERNAK
[...]
Still, the Pentagon plans to conduct human testing with lasers
and acoustics in the future, says Charles Swett, an assistant
for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Swett insists
that the testing will be constrained and highly ethical. It may
not be far off. The U.S. Air Force expects to have microwave
weapons by the year 2015 and other nonlethal weaponry sooner.
"When that does happen," warns Steven Metz, professor of national
security affairs at the U.S. Army War College, "I think there
will be a public uproar. We need an open debate on them now."
[...]
------------------------------
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.10/scans.html
Our Man in Cyberspace
Charles Swett is not your everyday technophile. Sure, he spends plenty
of time online, but he has been known to overthrow more governments
before 8 a.m. than most Net users do in a lifetime.
As assistant for strategic assessment in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict, Swett is in a position to alter the way the US government
views and uses the Internet. Last year, he wrote a treatise,
"Strategic Assessment: The Internet"
(www.copi.com/articles/IntelRpt/swett.html), which urged the Pentagon
to use computer communications more actively in its intelligence work
both on American soil and abroad.
Swett's report surveys the Internet's potential as a tool of the state
and studies "fringe groups" organizing politically on the Net. In
particular, he focuses on left-wing organizations such as the Institute
for Global Communications, piquing the attention of those who recall
the intelligence community's COINTELPRO excesses - a 1970s FBI probe
of leftist groups. Swett argues that his emphasis on the left "does
not reflect any personal or institutional bias. The left has simply
been more resourceful in its use of the Internet as an organizing
tool."
[...]
------------------------------
THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS AND
CONFLICT SHORT OF WAR
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb/misc/rmaWarCollege.html
[...]
For ideas, comments, and background material, the authors would like
to thank Rudolph C. Barnes Jr., Rod Paschall, William W. Mendel,
Charles F. Swett, Jeffrey Cooper, Stefan Antonmattei III, Gary
Guertner, Douglas V. Johnson, and, especially William T. Johnsen.
[...]
------------------------------
Non-Lethal Defense Conference. Attendees. Johns Hopkins University,
November 16-17, 1993. 18 pages.
http://www.namebase.org/sources/VL.html
------------------------------
NONLETHALITY AND AMERICAN LAND POWER:
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS
[...]
By 1996, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict had
produced a foundation policy document-Department of
Defense Directive (DODD) 3000.3, Policy for Non-lethal
Weapons with Charles F. Swett as the lead author.
[...]
------------------------------
Another Charles Frederick Swett (Charles Swett) is recorded on the
internet as posting about Eastern religions around 1995-1996, and
some poetry in 1997, but without further information I'll assume
it is a different person...
------------------------------
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker