The Microsoft Word doc is titled “The Stratfor Glossary of Useful, Baffling and Strange Intelligence Terms.” The author–not identified in the file’s metadata–succinctly introduces the list of terms and definitions: “Every profession and industry has its own vocabulary. Using baseball terms to explain a football game is tough. These are some of the terms we use.”

The following is just a selection of the terms and definitions that could further complicate Stratfor’s already sticky situation. Some are so bluntly-worded they raise the possibility that this was some kind of internal joke:

ATF Alcohol Tobacco and Fire Arms. Rednecks with a license to kill. Never, ever, ever ask for their help on anything.

Background Check Check of history of someone to determine reliability. Usually meaningless. A perfect credit rating does not mean you aren’t devious scum. Does run up the client’s bill and makes it appear that you are busy. Clancy move. Pros run tests. [Ed. The same document later states that a “Clancy” is “Somebody who has read a lot of Tom Clancy novels and thinks he knows the Craft. Total moron. Really dangerous if he is the Customer. Never let a Briefer be a Clancy. “]

Black Op If you heard even a hint of it, it ain’t black. Anyone who tells you about a black op is a liar. Does Stratfor do black ops? You’ll never know.

Backgrounder General analysis that gives the customer better situational awareness. The customer never actually reads the Backgrounder. Its primary use is as cover when the customer screws something up. Backgrounders are the basic intelligence tool for shifting blame to the customer.

Brief the Times When the Briefer has obtained zero valuable intelligence from analysis, he finds something in the inside of the morning paper, powers up a view graph, and “Briefs the Times.” Customers are frequently impressed. It’s a hoot.

CIA Central Intelligence Agency. Also called “Langley” or “up river.” Owns human intelligence (directorate of operations) and analysis (directorate of intelligence). Director, CIA is supposed to oversee all of the intelligence community. Isn’t that a joke? Imagine the Post Office with a foreign policy.

CIA Appetite/Botswana budget A customer with limited resources asking for enormous amounts of intelligence. Defines most of Stratfor’s customers.

Duplicitous little bastards Israeli Intelligence

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation, aka the Downtown Gang. Very good a breaking up used car rings. Kind of confused on anything more complicated. Fun to jerk with. Not fun when they jerk back.

Green-carder A source working for you because he believes that you will take him to America where he will own a Seven-Eleven. Try not to disabuse him until after you’ve squeezed his sorry ass.

Secret Service They catch counterfeiters, break up child pornography rings and guard the president. Continual identity crisis. Very nice people. Not, shall we say, the most sophisticated crew you’ll ever find.

The glossary in full may be an additional embarrassment for Stratfor, but Wikileaks appears to promise there’s much worse to come: “Like WikiLeaks’ diplomatic cables, much of the significance of the emails will be revealed over the coming weeks, as our coalition and the public search through them and discover connections.”

The group’s reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor; they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight. As a former recipient of their “INTEL REPORTS” (I assume someone at Stratfor signed me up for a trial subscription, which appeared in my inbox unsolicited), what I found was typically some combination of publicly available information and bland “analysis” that had already appeared in the previous day’s New York Times. A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year.

However, it’s worth noting that Fisher’s thesis, which seems to be based on hearsay and conjecture alone rather than hard evidence, is getting debated heavily in the comments, with some suggesting he’s naïve. “The entire vibe of your piece is so snarky and so obviously full of anti-Wikileaks sentiment that it’s hard to know whether to take you seriously or not,” one commenter writes.

[Statfor’s Fred] Burton clearly felt was his own little Wikileaks window into the DoJ.  So on 1-26-2011 when Burton sent an email to saying he had intelligence that the DoJ had a “sealed indictment” on Assange, you have to wonder where it came from.

Now I’m thinking, might as well put the email address “” through a search and see what comes up.  Lo and behold, there’s only one non-Stratfor related hit:  a Collier County, Florida bid solicitation for “Security Consultant,” starting on January 26, 2012 and ending on February 1, 2012:

James M. Casey, LLC James Casey 1370 Fryston Street Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 32259
(571) 246-7249

What is James M. Casey, LLC?  Glad you asked.  Because  the Florida Times-Union has an article dated yesterday that tells us 25 year FBI veteran James Casey is retiring from the FBI that very day to start his own business: James M. Casey, LLC:

After 25 years of service in the FBI and four as the special agent in charge of the Jacksonville Division, James Casey is leaving to start his own business — in investigations.

The 53-year-old Casey steps down from running the Jacksonville operation today. On Thursday, he begins his new gig in the private sector running James M. Casey, LLC, Intelligence/Diligence/Risk, a firm designed to look into corporate and government programs that could involve white collar crime and compliance issues. […]

Just in case you were wondering who at the FBI was leaking to Stratfor, the dots are all connected for you:  Nobody.  Because James Casey is gone from the FBI.  Retired.  Poof!  Worried that they gave him the boot because he was singing like a canary to Stratfor, and they didn’t want to launch an internal leak investigation?  Well there’s a Florida county government site that lists Casey as a bidder on a contract that ended a month ago.

No doubt it’s just another coincidence that Wikileaks says it released the first Stratfor email with Burton citing his DoJ intel on Assange on January 29.

And I’m sure the appearance of the Times-Union article only two days after the big Stratfor email dump is yet another coincidence.  It will certainly be a Reader’s Digest “was my face red!” moment when reporter Drew Dixson finds out that the subject of his puff piece was the FBI agent sending emails to Stratfor about Wikileaks who was all over the news — and he missed it!

Moral of the story:  Bradley Manning gets charged with “aiding the enemy” for potentially leaking information that was available on the SIPRNET to hundreds of thousands of people.   This guy gets a gold watch and no investigation for potentially leaking the existence of a sealed DoJ indictment of Julian Assange that I imagine almost nobody knew about.

If I were Bradley Manning’s lawyer I’d be putting James M. Casey, LLC on my witness list pronto.  He seems to be the chatty type.

Watch on
Anonymous and Wikileaks Reveal Stratfor Emails Shows Spying / Watergate Reloaded ?

Anonymous and Wikileaks Reveal Stratfor Emails Show wire tapping 

and this video as a bonus features the woman i love… Ana Kasparian…Marry me boo?? i will hax for you.

Curiously, there are whispers of McCain being set up by the Cheney/Bush crowd, because McCain was never liked by either. Some are shocked he did so well. Coupled with serious errors in tactics. Some made no sense. For example, the Hispanics in Florida loved Palin but his camp would never send her there when easy money was to be had. My guy said Rove and company want to bring in someone they can control next go around. McCain was not controllable. Jeb Bush’s name is being discussed. Source advised Rick Davis was an arsehole and McCain’s econ team had no clue, trusting in academics vice business-people. The Jewish crowd was split and money never flowed. For example, McCain staff only gave $3000.00 for nationwide ads, when Obama put in $500,000 targeting the Jewish community in Florida alone.
—  The Global Intelligence Files — Wikileaks obtained thousands of emails from the security firm Stratfor, including this one discussing Sen. John McCain’s failed presidential run after the 2008 election in which he lost to Sen. Barack Obama.
Emails from Fred Burton reveal that the US Government employs the same counterterrorism strategy against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as against Al Qaeda: ‘Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ [Al Qaeda]. Thank Cheney & 43 [former US President George W. Bush]. Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist arse.’
One might expect to read some hand-wringing over public safety concerns in a government document, and yet the DHS document appears to be more concerned with protecting the mechanisms of the financial sector than in ensuring the safety of citizens who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
#WikiLeaks, un pequeño apunte

Sólo quiero apuntar una cosa muy sencilla: WikiLeaks ha publicado unos datos que han llegado a sus manos. WikiLeaks se ampara en leyes que defienden el derecho a la libertad de expresión y la transparencia en la información. WikiLeaks no ha robado los datos, aunque si lo hubiese hecho podríamos abrir otra línea de debate muy interesante, pero en la que ahora no voy a entrar. Por lo que se refiere al aspecto legalidad, está todo bien (de hecho, varios casos contra WikiLeaks acabaron por darle la razón al portal).

Y si lo que os importa, al margen de la ley, es la moralidad de las filtraciones sólo os diré una cosa: WikiLeaks podría haber vendido datos estadounidenses a países como Rusia o China, y lo mismo con tantísimos otros datos que podría haber vendido a gobiernos y multinacionales muy interesados en ellos y que, sin duda, habrían abonado una fortuna por adquirirlos. Pero WikiLeaks no los vende, los expone, y los expone porque se está conspirando contra todos nosotros y tenemos derecho a conocer esa información, porque nuestras constituciones amparan la transparencia. Quien vende nuestros datos privados al enemigo, ayúdanole, no es WikiLeaks, son empresas como Stratfor.

Que a nadie le persuadan de lo contrario.

On Beltway Disdain for WikiLeaks and Downplaying the the Stratfor Email Leak

From Michael Hastings (writing at Rolling Stone):

Predictably, it’s not just intel and government officials (both current and former) that have displayed their distaste for Assange. After WikiLeaks announced on Sunday that they would begin publishing the Stratfor emails, the derision rained down from the usual suspects in the Beltway media. A typical response: one editor at The Atlantic called WikiLeaks “a joke,” dismissing the Strafor emails out of hand.

This perplexes me: To advertise a complete lack of interest in the inner workings of a major private intelligence firm, whose corporate clients (who pay up to $40,000 for Stratfor’s services) include companies like Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America – seems, to say the least, rather un-journalistic. If Stratfor is a joke, what does that say about the government agencies like the C.I.A. and other intel shops that supply Stratfor with employees. And if WikiLeaks – an organization that ‘s pulled off a few of the biggest coups in the history of journalism – is a joke, whom, exactly, is the joke on?

Already, via these emails, we’ve seen a company, Stratfor, getting paid by large corporations to spy on activists around the world, scheme with Goldman Sachs, and pontificate about money laundering soccer teams. Whatever angle you look at it from, this is news. Though it’s unlikely the Stratfor emails will have the impact that Cablegate or the Iraq Diaries and the Afghan War Logs, it does provide for another fascinating exposé of the types of organizations that are becoming ever more profitable and powerful: intelligence firms that blur the lines between private and government work. Remember, when Burton said “we” have an indictment against Assange, he didn’t mean Stratfor – he meant the U.S. government, our government.

And don’t forget the just revealed DHS report on Occupy Wall Street

P.S. 5,000,000 is a large number. 200 emails have been released so far.

Stratfor Responds on Facebook

this is fucking hilarious because its pathetic. go to the link and read the responses lmao.

STRATFOR Our statement on Wikileaks below:

Stratfor Statement on Wikileaks 
Company Denounces Email Disclosure as Deplorable Breach of Privacy

Austin, Texas — Feb. 26, 2012 — Below is a statement from Stratfor on release of company emails by Wikileaks: 

In December, thieves compromised Stratfor’s data systems and stole a large number of company emails, along with other private information of Stratfor readers, subscribers and employees. Those stolen emails apparently will be published by Wikileaks. This is a deplorable, unfortunate — and illegal — breach of privacy. 

Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either. Nor will we explain the thinking that went into them. Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them.

For subscribers and friends of Stratfor, we stress that the disclosure of these emails does not mean that there has been another hack of Stratfor’s computer and data systems. Stratfor’s data systems, which we have worked hard to rebuild since the December hack, remain secure and protected.

As with last year’s hack, the release of these emails is a direct attack on Stratfor. This is another attempt to silence and intimidate the company, and one we reject. Under the continued leadership of founder and Chief Executive Officer George Friedman, Stratfor will not be silenced and will continue to publish the geopolitical analysis our friends and subscribers have come to rely upon. 

As we have said before, Stratfor has worked to build good sources in many countries around the world, as any publisher of global geopolitical analysis would do. We have done so in a straightforward manner and we are committed to meeting the highest standards of professional conduct. 

Stratfor is not a government organization, nor is it affiliated with any government. The emails are private property. Like all private emails, they were written casually, with no expectation anyone other than the sender and recipient would ever see them. They should be read as such.

Stratfor understands that this hack and the fallout from it, including the disclosures by Wikileaks, have created serious difficulties for our subscribers, friends and employees. We again apologize for any problems this incident has created, and we deeply appreciate the loyalty that has been shown to Stratfor since last year’s hack. 

We want to assure everyone that Stratfor is committed to recovering from the hack and rebuilding trust with the public, and will continue to do what we do best: produce and publish industry-leading analysis of international affairs.

# # #