Top Secret America 502
mahiskali writes "The Washington Post published an immense interactive website today, detailing the companies and government agencies currently doing top secret work in the United States. Everything from counter-IED operations to human intelligence is touched upon. Citing various interviews with 'super users' and through exhaustive analysis of public records for over two years, this interactive site allows users to peer into the guarded world of top secret intelligence. With more than 854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance, has the defense and intelligence world grown too big, too fast? Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11? How can we judge the success of these programs, when much of it will never be known by the general public?"
United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:4, Interesting)
How can we judge the success of these programs, when much of it will never be known by the general public?
I thought the effectiveness of intelligence and homeland security spending were periodically reported on and covered by the GAO [gao.gov]? Then you'd get congressional hearings on bad years and large contracts like the FBI's Virtual Case File System (complete failure)?
Seems to be a lot of hype. Yeah, we know the contractors soak up a lot of your tax dollars. Yeah, I know you can use black and white footage to make it look evil and interview your own reporters to sell newspapers and ads. You might be correct saying that there has been too much spending since 9/11 on this stuff but how does revealing contracts and small businesses associated with the government help this situation?
Also, I'd like to point out that this appears to be a three part story running Mon-Tues-Wed with a PBS Frontline one hour special on it [pbs.org]. Evidently, PBS and the WP think the little stuff you know about national security is going to aid you in your decision to determine whether or not your tax dollars are being appropriately spent. Good luck.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:4, Insightful)
okay, so the issue here is that top secret is a requirement for a lot of things that might not be top secret. Say you're doing some kind of database for the gov't? It could be as basic as library of congress but they might require someone with top secret clearance at some level of the company.
It's the wrong issue to focus on if you simply look at "are top secret jobs productive/worthwhile or not", essentially.
While I am sure there are some positions that are overpaid and won government contracts for more money than the minimal BS they're doing, the bigger issue should be : why do we need this many programs top secret?
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
Terror attacks will come again from other sources. It doesn't matter how much money you spend. Maybe if you spend enough to create the situation that existed in former East Germany. But do anybody really want to go there?
And are all these measures able to take care of a terrorist like the Una Bomber [wikipedia.org] anyway?
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of the anti-terrorist hysteria reminds me of the tiger repelling rock. The fact is that terrorist attacks were few and far between before 9/11 and probably would have remained so after. The tactics used on 9/11 didn't even remain effective for the entire duration of the attack simply due to the civilian response. Evidence suggests that it wouldn't have been effective at all but for the bad advice from our government that the first few plane's worth of passengers followed.
Locks on cockpit doors make sense, and no longer telling civilians that passivity works make sense. The rest including the war on clean hair and proper hydration as well as the color coded chart telling us how terrified to be need to be scrapped.
It's too bad all the airport security crap can't be re-purposed as medical scanners so we could address an actual problem (expensive healthcare) that actually causes people to die.
Most of the stuff is marked top secret so they can severely punish anyone who points out that they're naked.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it possible yet to filter out Slashdot stories sourced from certain press channels? That would be a great feature - I'd like to vote my disapproval for these kinds of dismal journalistic practices by filtering _any_ stories based on these rotten apples as a source.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
And there are those that would use this information to conclude that the best approach is to just watch Fox News and read right-wing blogs because you can't trust anything in the big liberal newspapers.
Here's a news flash: Newspapers have never been fully trustworthy. You think the Hearst papers were being honest in the way they dealt with the early part of the 20th century? You believe the Wall Street Journal was being impartial when they reported on the Viet Nam War?
There has never been a time when you can accept news from any source without taking the source itself into account. Critical thinking has always been necessary.
Yet, even with their faults and stumbling efforts at transparency through the years, when the Washington Post published the Pentagon Papers despite their being classified, they allowed citizens to make more informed decisions about the behavior of their government. When the NYT revealed the CIA assassinations in South America and elsewhere, should they have held those stories back because there had been scandals where certain reporters had fabricated stories?
We'll never have a fully independent and reliable press in the US until they are subsidized by the government. Yes, you read that correctly. SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The same way newspapers were subsidized by the government in the period immediately following the ratification of the US Constitution. Did you know that the Founding Fathers approved government subsidized for a free press? That's exactly what the early postal subsidies were. At a time when the biggest operating expense of most newspapers was their distribution, the Founding Fathers, Madison, Jefferson, et al, subsidized their delivery via US Post. That's how important they believed the Press was to our existence as a free people.
Now you would say that the solution is to do away with any standards because the national press can't keep those standards, and get all our news from bloggers. You may not have noticed by some of the most reliable online journalists ARE print journalists. The same guys who write the stories in the papers are writing them online, only online we have absolutely no way of knowing where their funding is coming from. That's not a recipe for a reliable Press.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll never have a fully independent and reliable press in the US until they are subsidized by the government. Yes, you read that correctly. SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Sure thing. We'll have a government subsidized entity as a watchdog for the government. What could possibly go wrong?
Did you know that the Founding Fathers approved government subsidized for a free press?
[Citation needed]
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you think has more fiscal power in the US - the government, or the businesses? Now say a paper wants to run a story that would make it's biggest advertiser look bad - do you think the story will run? You won't run into that if a paper isn't relying on advertising dollars to keep it running.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Same here. I can't find any evidence that this delivery was subsidized; in fact, John Jay, the first Chief Justice, recommended to Washington that the post office not even deliver newspapers at all. At the time, even letter delivery was not subsidized in any way-- if you wanted it delivered to your door, this was done for an extra charge that was split between the post office and an independent contractor.
Why is there so much clamor about maintaining a "wall of separation" between church and state, but we
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do agree that Newspapers have never been fully trustworthy, however the research links posted above do quantify just how low the so called credible press sources have fallen in just the last decade vs ~a century of history. In any case, there is no reason to excuse this kind of behavior anymore as you appear to be doing, even despite the few and far between shining moments you picked out. Yes critical thinking is always important with everything we read and there is no substitute for it, however if you ca
Re:United States Government Accountability Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all it takes? So Pravda was fully independent and reliable because it was subsidized by the government? What if I decide to publish a newspaper promoting communist/fascist/racist or whatever unpopular views? Will I get the subsidy as well? Who decides, and by what criteria, which newspapers will be the good boys who get the subsidy and a pat on the head by the government and which ones don't? The truth is the exact opposite of what you said. It is impossible to have free and independent press if it receives even one penny from the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As the American experience has shown in regard to the free press, there's a difference between being subsidized by the government and being operated by the government.
So you disagree with the Founding Fathers and over two centuries of US history? Why do you hate America?
Correction (Score:3, Funny)
FTFY
Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?"
The day after 9/11 I found a rock. I've kept this rock with me every day since then. Could it be more that this rock prevents terrorism?
Will people ever learn that correlation does not imply causation?
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Funny)
i'll give you $30 for the rock.
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Funny)
i'll give you $30 for the rock.
well I have a rock too .. and it keeps terr'rists *and* elephants at bay. And at $50 its a steal compared to a rock that only does one thing.
The reason I am selling it is because I want to get one of those K-Tel rocks .. man they are sweet .. they keep everything at bay!
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
In Iran, rocks prevent adultery.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Iran, rocks punish adultery.
FTFY
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
FYFFY
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's odd. My rock created or saved 3.6 million jobs. I wonder why they aren't all the same.
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Funny)
Paper covers rock. Spock vaporizes rock [samkass.com].
The day after 9/11 you found a rock? (Score:5, Funny)
For most Americans, the day after 9/11 they found Iraq.
Re:The day after 9/11 you found a rock? (Score:5, Informative)
For most Americans, the day after 9/11 they found Iraq.
Which is sad revisionist history since that the US immediately invaded Afghanistan over 9/11 and only a long time later did they get around to invading Iraq.
Re:The day after 9/11 you found a rock? (Score:5, Funny)
WHOOOSH!
Puns are the only thing that separates us from The Terrorists.
You don't read much, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go. [independent.co.uk]
Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism coordinator at the time, has revealed details of a meeting the day after the attacks during which officials considered the US response. Already, he said, they were certain al-Qa'ida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Mr Clarke said. "We all said, 'No, no, al-Qa'ida is in Afghanistan.'"
But Mr Clarke, who is expected to testify on Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Mr Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq." A spokesman for Mr Rumsfeld last night said he could not comment immediately.
Re:You don't read much, huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The day after 9/11 you found a rock? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm, have you forgotten the Fort Hood shooting by Nidal Malik Hasan last November? 13 dead, 30 injured, by a Muslim terrorist who was basically a sleeper agent inside the US Military? Or the attempted car bomb in Times Square back in May (the fact that it didn't go off had nothing to do with any efforts by our intelligence forces)?
No, correlation NEED NOT imply causation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see: There have been successful terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11. These attacks imply that terrorists are still active. Terrorists groups have re-asserted their ongoing desire to conduct similar attacks with in the US. Moreover, some such attempts have been made in the US but largely prevented. I'd say those might imply causation, douchebag.
Funny that in Europe many people think its the redneck militaristic Americans who are the douchebags.
There haven't been any successful terrorist attacks on Finland, Slovakia or Portugal either... and those countries can even be reached on foot from the terrorist hotspots. And they haven't severely reduced civil rights or increased their military expenses to a level that is unsustainable on the long term (although Portugal seems to have found ways to go bankrupt even without wasting money on an army).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that and we Europeans feel like the increased threat to our countries is also to blame on US foreign policy... Most 'terrorists' are just idiots trying to do battle against the entire western world. Their beef is with the US, but the entire western world now feels the wrath of these terrorists... So top-secret-US-agencies thanks a lot for that, you really helped out! And so did invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and all of the shit the US pulls we don't even have a fucking clue about. You can't try to control the world because there will be (bad) consequences to all your actions... and right now we're feeling a little too much of that too here in Europe...
Then tell your leaders nut up and protest "our" actions by some method other than a slightly-harshly worded letter.
Just like we over here can't do a goddamn thing about it because the masses keep electing these scumbags, you guys might try getting your bosses to stop pussy-footing around and take a stand instead of just oozing an Apple-like self-righteous smugness on t3h intarwebz whenever the subject comes up while your own officials jerk you off with one hand and Washington with the other.
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, we can protest all we want and our government may even agree, but they can never get the US to stop treating the whole fucking world as their personal playground to do with as they damn well please... So don't pretend like we can actually have any influence of the policy of the US. And don't even begin about smugness, because Americans are the worst of all... Thinking they are the greatest, and this the United Planet of America. We see those dumbasses on TV all the time saying "USA is the greatest most free-est place on earth. I've never even been abroad because all other countries suck. Whooo USA!". Fuck, you don't even know what freedom is.
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Informative)
Funny that in Europe many people think its the redneck militaristic Americans who are the douchebags.
At least we respect freedom of religion in this country and aren't busy passing [wikipedia.org] legislation [cnn.com] to infringe upon the practice of that freedom. Maybe you should take a look at your own backyard before you start throwing stones into mine?
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that in Europe many people think its the redneck militaristic Americans who are the douchebags.
At least we respect freedom of religion in this country
How is that proposed mosque next to ground zero coming along?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comparing public outrage to institutionalized discrimination is disingenuous. The United States has it's share of people that are intolerant towards other faiths yet our government isn't busy drafting laws to control what kind of Houses of Worship can be built (the Swiss minaret ban) or what kind of clothing can be worn (the French legislation). You've literally got national governments in Europe that are concerning themselves with the clothes that people wear. That's absurd and frightening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comparing public outrage to institutionalized discrimination is disingenuous. The United States has it's share of people that are intolerant towards other faiths yet our government isn't busy drafting laws to control what kind of Houses of Worship can be built (the Swiss minaret ban) or what kind of clothing can be worn (the French legislation). You've literally got national governments in Europe that are concerning themselves with the clothes that people wear. That's absurd and frightening.
No .. what is happening is more insidious when you have politicians proposing investigations into financing of the mosque "just in case something might not be right". Sure its not institutionalized, but the anti-religeous sentiment is alive and well at all levels of the government. Witch hunts are not pleasant for the person(s) being investigated yet they can have the air of being perfectly legal and all above board. Dare I mention McCarthyism?
And as to public tolerance - how about asking all the persecu
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
Preventing a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor wouldn't be an infringement on the first Amendment
Yes it would. Telling a religion that they can't build a house of worship in a specific city is most definitely an infringement on the 1st amendment.
so long as it doesn't offend the families of the men and women who were murdered at Pearl Harbor
Please point out the section of the US Constitution that says you have a right not to be offended.
The freedom of religion does not include freedom to offend other people with your religion.
Actually, yes, it does. I'm free to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't directly harm you. Offending you != harming you.
I wish the court system would teach that lesson to the fruitcakes from that Westboro Baptist "church".
The 1st amendment would protect their activities regardless of whether or not they were religious in nature. It's called free speech. Even jackasses have it.
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I am an asshole.
Bigoted? Uhhhh - possibly. But, don't try to disguise the bigotry of all the other groups in the world. Much of Islam hates the United States, and many Imams are happy to declare fatwas against the US and her allies for various reasons, such as silly cartoons. It seems to me that many, if not most, Moslems are just as much bigoted assholes as I am.
Due process? Well, enemies of the United States take full advantage of it, so why shouldn't a patriot? I'm all for due process. Take Major Hassan, for instance. I want him to get his day in court - in a military trial. I want him to be found guilty of dozens of charges. And, most of all, I want his hypocrisy made public. The man swore to serve the United States, then broke that oath. Funny thing is, he sees no hypocrisy. His Imams have taught him that it's alright to lie to the infidels, then to stab them in the back.
The religion of peace, LOL They are just as peaceful as the crusaders from Europe, centuries ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule of law and the free practice of religion have little to do with a religion that has set itself up as the enemy of my nation.
Try telling the 7,000,000 Muslims living here peacefully that their entire religion has "set itself up" as an enemy of our country.
You've failed to take my challenge, and you can't show me any list of Imams who are tolerant to Western ideals
I don't have to disprove something that is clearly false. You claim to know the motivations of 1.5 billion people based on the actions of a few hundred people. This is patently absurd.
Accepted and supported with donations arriving every day, from common people in every city in Islam.
The Irish Republican Army received donations from every major city in the United States at one point in time. Following your logic, that means every single man, woman and child in the United S
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The freedom of expression supersedes the freedom to not be offended. You can choose to be offended by any arbitrary expression, that does not allow you to restrict another persons freedom of expression arbitrarily.
Expression may only be legitimately restricted when it infringes on a greater freedom. Your freedom of religion ends when it means your children are denied the right to life by withholding medical care or being exposed to venomous snakes.
Your freedom of expression likewise ends only where it may b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No one claimed to be offended by the existence of the Shinto religion - except you. What I am offended by, is the establishment of the Emperor's official religion on a site where the Emperor authorized the murder of a couple thousand American citizens.
The fact that you are offended by the existence of religion in general has no bearing on the fact that we suffered a military defeat at Pearl, and that many people would object to a Japanese temple being erected on the site of that defeat.
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's almost funny. It looks like a little bit of "What goes around, comes around." I would say "Karma", but no Moslem believes in that, does he? Have you applied for a permit to build a Christian church anywhere in Islam recently? A Jewish synagogue? How about a House of Wicca? I just can't help chuckling at your protest, Shakrai.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So your defense if European bigotry is to point out that other countries on this planet are worse? Yeah, that's a winning argument you've got there.
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a German I take the freedom to drive as fast as I want on the Autobahn over freedom of religion any day. Who needs the latter anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, the attack on Saddam's regime, following his invasion of a neighboring country and his unwillingness to ever adhere to the terms of his surrender as his forces were pushed back into his own country? That attack? And are you by any chance referring to the attack on the Taliban, who had murderously overtaken Afghanistan - to the considerable misery of the locals - and who were aggressively harboring the group that planned and executed attacks on embaassie
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Insightful)
the stupid attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan
You mean, the attack on Saddam's regime, following his invasion of a neighboring country and his unwillingness to ever adhere to the terms of his surrender as his forces were pushed back into his own country? That attack?
No, not the 1st attack. I mean the 2nd one. The one that all the Western world protested against. The actual invasion, not the liberation. The unnecessary attack that has caused many, many more dead people in Iraq than Saddam ever could have done himself.
The attack where we went for the Weapons of Mass Destruction, not the liberation of Kuwait.
And are you by any chance referring to the attack on the Taliban, who had murderously overtaken Afghanistan - to the considerable misery of the locals - and who were aggressively harboring the group that planned and executed attacks on embaassies and facilities in places all around the world, including the 9/11 events? That Taliban? Ask most Afghanis if they were really pleased, or not, to have their school teachers dragged into the town square (now peacefully free of heretic activities like kite flying and music playing) and shot in the head by the guys who want to see not just the middle east, but the entire world tuned up to their medieval specs.
Yup, that one as well. The one where other countries got a simple choice: either to be with or against the strongest country in the world. The attack where European countries had to choose between joining a war which wasn't their problem (many other countries have stupid regimes, check out Africa for your next invasions) or face economic sanctions. The attack that has successfully removed a stupid regime from a capital, but not from the country. The attack that uses all the wrong weapons to achieve nothing at all. Bombs against caves. Helicopter gunships against peasants.
If the US wanted to "attack Afghanistan," the whole place would be a glass parking lot right now. Instead, our troops get killed because of way-crazy ROEs, in the interests of protecting the very people that the Taliban have no problem slaughtering just to make a point.
Agreed. America aims to help the people of Afghanistan now - although in the beginning I really think it was an emotional attack which came from a feeling of revenge for the 9/11 attack rather than helping the Afghan people.
branding Iran as a terrorist state
So, you have no problem with them being a repressive, terrorist-sponsoring state, you just don't want anyone to call them on it?
I accept that they have a regime that doesn't cooperate with us. A religious regime, put there by US interference. I'd rather see them developing some sense all by themselves. If we keep bullying that country, all we do is assist their regime to stay in power. The Iranian people are, on average, quite educated. They know damn well what's going on in the rest of the world.
In addition, Iran stops 2/3rd of all the heroine that's transported from Afghanistan into Europe. They don't get any credit for this silent war on drugs. None of the coalition armies on the Afghan side assist them.
I am not so sure if they actually are the biggest sponsor of terrorism. Never seen any proof for that. But anyway, if coalition troops would just patrol the border, then they could stop both heroine and weapons.
They (Iran) are said to hate us (the Western world)... but I often wonder whose hatred is bigger: ours or theirs. You see, we always blamed the religious nuts for 'hating the Western world, and all its freedom', but we've changed and we now hate others just as much.
I've come to realize that there are, unfortunately, a lot of people on earth who lead poor and luckless lives. It's not only a few countries where we went to war. That was just an excuse. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is still in power. Chavez is going a little crazy in Venez
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Insightful)
The first war in Iraq is completely different from the second... I have no idea why the let Saddam in power (no doubt because he promised something that his probable successor would not), but it was a mistake. They may have fixed that mistake yes, but they *told us it was about WMDs*, they lied... simple. You can't go about invading countries for bullshit reasons. And you definitely can't drag other countries along with you like that, lying to your own citizens is still different from lying to your allies... the US lost a lot of goodwill worldwide.
And you point out Iraq shot at US planes. There was clearly some beef there not worked out since the first war... but it was not an attack on US soil, which was kinda the point since The North Atlantic treaty was bullshit in this situation... but the US played it like 'you are either with us or with the terrorists'.
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Insightful)
stupid attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan
Stop lumping Afghanistan and Iraq together as if they were the same thing. They weren't. Afghanistan was harboring a terrorist organization that murdered 3,000 people on American soil. No nation-state in the history of humanity with the ability to respond to that action would have declined to do so
It did not help that we were bullied into joining the Coalition of the Unwilling
"Bullied"? I thought it had something to do with NATO. My country stood on the brink of nuclear devastation to honor it's commitments to Europe during the Cold War. Now you consider it "bullying" when you are asked to stand up and honor them yourselves?
We have about 5% Muslims in Western Europe
And? We more immigrants than that and we aren't passing laws to make it harder for them to exercise their religion.
Although I admit that the ban on Burqas (face-covering thing for women) seems a ban on religion, the facial expression is a vital part in conversation.
Irrelevant. You are trampling all over the free exercise of religion. That legislation is indefensible.
Re:Hmm! (Score:4, Informative)
No, the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" that the US brought to bear agaisnt Iraq had nothing to do with NATO.
The mutual defense obligations under the NATO treaty had something to do with the NATO response in Afghanistan, because the US was attacked by terrorist based in and supported by the de facto government of Afghanistan.
Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
I shall point out to you that you wrote your post in English. No need to thank my country or my ancestors for that, you're welcome! Or perhaps you are of the sort that would prefer the world to speak German?
Russia is probably owed as much for the defeat of the Nazis as the Americans.
I shall also point out that Islam seeks power and money, and that I am not sure one would find either in any of the "countries" you listed.
Islam seeks submission to God. That's what the word Islam means. People seek power and money. For instance, Saudi Arabia is a theocracy, but it's a US Ally, because it's leaders seek money and power. (Remember GW Bush holding hands [slate.com] with the Saudi Crown Prince?)
If you wanted to knock terrorism into last century, you'd have to do two things: leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and form a new Manhattan style project to harvest energy directly to the sun to end our oil addiction. Of course, those things are nearly impossible for the US to do, since it only seeks power and money.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is clearly flamebait. And since I as a US citizen have a distaste for shit talking europeans
It sure is! Most people don't bother pointing that out at the beginning of their posts... well done.
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there were good security measures. The only thing missing at that time was a decent enemy.
Luckily, we found a good enemy. We take it very serious. And by the looks of it, we cannot even defeat this one. It's the perfect excuse to continue spending tons of money on useless weapons and other security measures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the dude who actually managed to smuggle explosive underwear onto an aircraft, but only managed to toast his own bits.
I think the GP should consider how s/he defines a "successful attack". 9/11 was successful and also happened to be catastrophic in terms of damage and loss of life. The times square bomber was also successful. Less murder and mayhem, but still very rattling to our sense of safety and security in one of our iconic cities. Though most terrorist acts are directed at people and infrastructure, ultimately they target our psyches.
How about the year BEFORE 9/11? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, all this focus on "it must have worked because there were no attacks after" ignores a crucial point: there haven't actually been foreign terror attacks in the USA _before_ 9/11 for a very long time. You know, _before_ all those idiotic constitution violations in the name of security.
Even looking at it dispassionately, I'd want basically to see someone disprove the null hypothesis if they sell me some miracle solution for anything. What is the situation with and _without_ their miracle cure? The before and after?
The last major terror attack _before_ 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, in 1995. (It also wasn't done by islamists, arabs, heathens, illegal immigrants, or the other scarecrows, but by two all-American nutters with a crazy right wing agenda. And I don't mean "right wing" as in "nazi", but the kind that goes "OMG, government is evil, gun control is evil, law enforcement is evil, load your guns and run for the hills!!!eleventeen")
The only things happening in between, and most of the stuff before 1995 too, were attacks abroad, which still haven't been stopped by the USA's giving up civil rights to stop the terrorists.
The main major terror show before that was the unabomber, who pretty much was the main show for the USA between 1978 and 1995, though not immediately and only managing to cause 3 fatalities. (And again it actually was a lone nutter who had no accomplices, belonged to no organization, and hadn't even told anyone about it. And he was a third-generation American at that. So neither much to infiltrate there, nor any profiling that would have helped.)
Look, when talking about events that rare, making a big fuss out of a short interval without them is stupid. (Although it's also false that there were none afterwards.)
I'm given the mental image of a couple of peasants who discover an elephant run away from a circus on their land. So they make up a stupid and inconvenient ritual for keeping elephants away, and unsurprisingly they never see an elephant on their land for 9 years straight. So they conclude that the ritual obviously works, and they must keep doing it every day. But the fact that they had also never seen an elephant on their land _before_ that ritual even existed, is lost on them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, one of them in L.A.
And, you know, terrorists are always honest and straightforward about their intentions, and never say one thing and do another.
The ones that have been prevented in the US for which information has been made public each fall into one or m
854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance (Score:5, Interesting)
That number mey be exaggerated; it's possible it includes me, as I held a TS clearance in the USAF almost 40 years ago. It may even be likely. Just because a person holds a clearance doesn't mean they actually know anything, even with a clearance you're only briefed on a "need to know" basis. If it does include me, it includes anyone who was ever stationed at Utapao, Thailand during the Vietnam war, since some secret recon gear was there. It also likely includes anyone who was ever stationed at a SAC base.
If this is so, 854k people doesn't seem quite so outrageous; it may sinply be the people still living who were investigated, cleared, and trained (you have to get training to get a TS clearance).
Re:854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right about the "need to know". Top Secret is only a starting point. After that, you get special clearances for specific projects. Even the names of some of these clearances are secret. I know of a guy that lost *all* of his clearances simple for listing his special clearances on his resume. Which makes finding people interesting. If you're a contractor needing people with QizBang clearance, you're not allowed to advertise for people with that clearance, and they aren't allowed to say they have it. ***
*** It's been twenty years since I've done anything that needed clearances. The DoD may have now have a secret clearing house where spy employers and employees can meet. If not, it should start one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been twenty years since I've done anything that needed clearances. The DoD may have now have a secret clearing house where spy employers and employees can meet. If not, it should start one.
When we had an open position in my group at work earlier this year, one of the candidates had spent most of his career working for organizations that required those kind of clearances. Maybe if I worked for a spy agency, there would be something available like you describe, but he said there was literally no way he c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Partly wrong on the first, correct on the second.
Clearances expire if you exceed the periodicity requirements for renewal (though I forget the length of the period). This can happen even if you're currently cleared at that level - my submarine got dinged hard because one guy's paperwork slipped through the cracks at the end of a yard period result
Top Secret Clearance != Access to Top Secret Info (Score:2)
Having the clearance doesn't immediately give you the access. You can't complete the certification process, and then stroll into FBI headquarters and ask for a list of undercover agents. TS clearance has been added as a necessity for many IT positions that don't actually access the data they're responsible for maintaining or retrieving, for example.
Are we 'safer'? Maybe. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither.”
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No successful terrorist attacks since 9/11? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
Is the submitter a complete idiot? remember those little letters full of Anthrax much?
Why do people keep saying this? its a completely weird oversight, especially as it was never credibly settled.
Re:No successful terrorist attacks since 9/11? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and let's also ignore the Fort Hood shootings [wikipedia.org], and accept the "on US soil" qualification. Then you might as well be saying "Fuck the troops. Fuck them in their stupid foreign-posted asses. Better them than me."
If this is "success", then what would failure look like?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is "success", then what would failure look like?
Freedom of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that just the crude way of saying "fight them over here so they don't fight us over here" or whatever Bush's stupid catch-phrase was? Actually, isn't that also the whole point behind maintaining a professional, standing army rather than a citizen's militia?
Re:No successful terrorist attacks since 9/11? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Misleading on the numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
The site statistics and information are incredibly misleading. Simply because 1m hold TS clearance, or the right to gain TS clearance for an SCI level job, does not mean 1m people are actively working in the industry.
With so many contractors such as Lockheed, CSC, OAO, etc... you have thousands which may hold clearance but they are not at the moment on a project. When I was working for CSC, in the span of a few years, I was on a dozen different projects. Some non-classified, some were. Not all were for the Gov't. I still had to hold a clearance.
Some were for the Gov't but totally benign in terms of what was worked on.
There is a massive amount of infrastructure to run all Gov't ops, bases, local and state Gov't. Even if you want to be a janitor in many places, you have to qualify for a clearance.
If you want to run fiber or copper cabling between buildings which house classified projects, you need to have a clearance.
To be a receptionist at many facilities, you need to have a clearance.
The information leads the reader to think that all 1m with TS clearance are working at the moment on nefarious projects for an evil government. While the reality is, most are simply support staff doing work that if it were any other customer, would be easily overlooked and thought down on.
This is just another Washington Post scaremongering article by someone who makes their living off of the people she is claiming are too many in number.
This isn't good or beneficial (Score:2)
If you consider back in 2002/3 the 'intelligence' gained turned out spurious in crucial places - this, during one of the fastest periods of 'top secret america's' growth - then no I'd say it isn't serving us ordinaries in the West very well at all. Info gathering for matters as big as what Colin Powell put forth at that time was pitiful, but did serve the ulterior motives that have been discussed at length here on Slashdot and elsewhere.
Since intelligence gathering was tied in with those two conflicts which
Tiger repellent. (Score:2, Funny)
> Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to bu
Contractors encouraged not to visit site (Score:2)
I first heard about this site through an email from work. We handle a lot of government contracts, some of which are probably secret (though I'm not involved in any of that). The email was instructing us not to visit the site. That way we could more convincingly "neither confirm nor deny" anything from that site.
Terrorism is rare (Score:5, Insightful)
Huge terrorist plots bringing down buildings are rare. The PETN bomber, for example, needed a steel detonator that could compress a sizable charge of PETN significantly, otherwise PETN just burns; but getting that kind of thing into airport security is hard, even pre-9/11, since they're bulky and steel and complex and obviously bombs. Taking over a plane is hard, too; seriously, box cutters aren't necessary when you can turn a shoe lace into a strangling tool and take a stewardess hostage.
Really, they were rare before 9/11; remember the Oklahoma thing, ad the 2 prior attempts on the new york trade centers. They're rare now.
Too big to be effective, too expensive... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're kind of like the TSA... the "war on terrorism" provided an excuse for a grandstanding president with little intelligence to look like a "great statesman" by creating more, bigger government agencies that will have limited usefulness and will never shrink on their own. After all, their creation was an opportunity for elected officials to both appear to be "doing something" about terrorism and to spend a lot of money on their constituents, helping ensure their re-election.
It's a natural human impulse to think "more is better" or "bigger is better"... I'm starting to think it's biologically rooted. At any rate, combining all the intelligence agencies into one big organization only works if all the people involved are egoless, if they all are willing to work together, and if they all don't care if they have a job tomorrow. Most people can't do this, and the folks in charge at these agencies are the ones least likely to be able to do so, especially since many of them are government appointed or union.
The worst part is that many of the people involved with these efforts truly believe that they are doing the Right Thing, that they are the best defense against "another 9/11" and that they must be allowed to continue regardless of whether the US has the money or whether our existing laws stand in their way.
Submitted for your consideration: Which was worse for our country... the 9/11 attack and the aftermath, or the wars, restrictions, loss of freedoms, and problems created by our own government in response to it?
I never believed that 9/11 was anything but a horrible crime. No less than that, but certainly no more than that...
PS: Taco, this beta release of the comments editing software needs finishing...
"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"? (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been numerous terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, two successful (e.g., Fort Hood, Little Rock) and the rest foiled only by the attackers' own incompetence (e.g., Shoebomber, Pantybomber, Times Square).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that should be three successful attacks -- I forgot the shooting at LAX in 2002.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Geez, it must be too early in the morning for me, because I also forgot the Washington D.C. snipers. So make that four successful attacks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WWII (Score:2, Interesting)
As a note, I hold a clearance and most of the stuff that is classified is just ridiculous. Of course, there is the problem of classification due to aggregation of info, but seriously, most peopl
Measure effectiveness? FAIL! (Score:3, Insightful)
The most recent example of a terrorist attack on US soil would be 9/11, and we know some things about the involvements of government agencies there:
- First of all they (CIA) funded, armed and trained the people responsible (although decades before, it had a measurable influence)
- After that their 'betrayal' and international covert operations (or more in general US involvement abroad) are mentioned by terrorist organizations as a mayor reason for their war on the US
- And last but not least these agencies knew of an impending attack prior to 9/11 and failed to protect the civilians
So according to my score they failed miserably! Given the absence of proof to the contrary it looks like the larger the (counter)intelligence in a country is the more likely that country will become involved in international terrorism and other unwanted unintended consequences. I'm really glad the Netherlands where I live does not have such massive covert operations, if the US is the example to go by it would probably cause more problems for us than it would ever solve...
So much money and resources (Score:2)
And yet the haven't found Osama bin Laden or the Anthrax killer and still don't seem to have any clue who really killed JFK! Obviously, more money has to be spent on national security in order to solve these mysteries!
Very difficult (Score:5, Interesting)
There has been no 9/11 since 9/11 BUT there also was no 9/11 BEFORE 9/11
The point is, terrorists are NOT like regular soldiers who are expected to keep up a steady attack to defeat the enemey. All a terrorist has to do is create terror. As long as you are afraid of a terrorist, the terrorist has done his job.
Or to turn the roles around, partisans who fought the germans were NOT judged on the number of germans they killed but on how many german soldiers they kept away from the front lines. The allies played this game to great effect, weakening the german army by forcing them to fight on all fronts at the same time. Every soldier that had to patrol "safe" ground was a soldier not fighting the allies. That is PART of the reason for city bombardments, every AA gun defending cities was not blowing up tanks.
So, how have terrorist managed to affect the US BEFORE 9/11 and AFTER 9/11?
There have been terror attacks before including on US targets, but the average US citizen failed to be afraid of them... well except for celebs being afraid to fly to europe from time to time.
Post 9/11 the average US citizen, or at least the people who claim to speak for them, have become afraid. Job done as far as the terrorists are concerned. No succesful new attacks are needed. They might even be counter productive. Shoe bomber and the nigerian just harm the cause because they look silly and you might get the Israel effect, were the population doesn't care anymore and just votes to have muslims shot on sight (move to far right in Israely politics). Last thing the terrorists want is to really piss of the US to the point that nukes start flying. Turn the desert to glass would solve the whole problem in one go.
To many attacks and terror looses its meaning, people just demand vengeance. See the total failure of city bombings in europe to demoralize the public. Nukes were needed in Japan to achieve it. 8 million vietnamese citizens killed by the US and the US still lost that war. Terror is overrated in volume. Small attacks that are rare but people still think could happen any moment are scary.
Think Doom 3. Yeah yeah, lights go out, I turn around and BOOM BOOM, dead enemy. Yawn.
There have been failed and successful attack before 9/11 and after. Most likely all the security isn't changing the numbers in any real way.
And it doesn't have to be in the US. If the madrid bombings stopped US citizens from travelling abroad: Mission accomplished.
That is way a handful of terrorists/freedom fighters can tie up a large army... and why armies fighting them often resort to killing civilians in retribution.
Re:Very difficult (Score:4, Insightful)
"Turn the desert to glass would solve the whole problem in one go. "
Somehow I think if the US exterminated over a billion people overnight it would only be the start of their problems.
Think the world hates the US now?
I've heard people speculating that the most successful campaign the IRA ever pulled off was one with very few casualties.
They bombed a few train stations after giving warnings (someone was killed though) and then phoned in similar warnings (with no bombs) for months.
When there's bombs exploding and people dying people rally around their government for protection.
When there's no bombs exploding but the train stations keep getting closed and people keep getting delayed and being late for work they get angry at their government.
We already lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Paranoid terrorism is US foreign policy in a nutshell. The only difference between Osama bin Laden threatening to destroy America and the United States threatening to destroy Iran is that we can actually do it.
Islamic fundamentalists love the US War on Terror. They get to train against our soldiers, drum up support from places where they had none before, like Iraq, and use our degraded moral standards in their propaganda. The moment we kidnapped and tortured a single human being, we lost the war on terror.
854,000 (Score:3)
"With more than 854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance"
That is a lot of people.
Their is no way they keep much secret with that many people having access to it.
Proof. (Score:2)
We cannot prove what cannot be theoretically disproved (falsified). So we cannot prove "no terrorist attacks because of Top Secret work" just because "no attacks occurred", for there is no evidence to challenge. If there were a direct link, there would be, and we would be able to.
This is an extremely powerful fake fact generating technique that politicians are all too well aware of, and what conspiracies are made of. No one can disprove UFOs, hence they exist. No, they don't exist because there is no proof.
If you have to ask... (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen, USA spends more than how many nations combined on "defense" ?
It's time to END THE MADNESS now. Call your senators, representatives, neighbors, priests, doctors, whoever you think may have a pulse and explain why we should cut our defense spending today.
America's infrastructure is crumbling, the top 1% are laughing, the rest of us are in trouble.
Define "Terrorism" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorism doesn't have to have the bomb explode. It's mere presense makes for a successful attack. Was the "Times Square Bomber" successful? The answer is YES, HE WAS -- because it created a sense of "terror" to the population. The "bomb" didn't have to explode. In fact, the bomb couldn't have "exploded" because it was so poorly built, the best it could have done was burn brightly. It would have been a car-fire and nothing more, the kind you see on the Cross-Bronx expressway almost every day and ignore.
But because it was reported as a "bomb", the populace was scared. Job done. Terror is created. The Media and the Government create more "Terror" than the actual terrorists do.
Successful attack? It doesn't matter if the 'bomb' explodes or not. Frankly, it doesn't matter if there's even a bomb at all. Just the "act" of terrorism in any way that gets the population to be scared, change their travel plans, worry about their homes, run out and buy duct-tape and plastic sheeting, build bomb shelters, yadda-yadda, is a *successful attack* because it's done the job intended.
And the job is to CHANGE OUR BEHAVIOR. Spend money on security theater. Waste our time fearing the bogeyman.
Job done. Successfully. Every time.
TS isn't high (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and they've threatened to attack other dates at random until we change our calendar.
Re:9/11 ? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, the terrorists attack the number 0.81818181818181818181818181818182 all the time. I rounded it up to prevent any real damage to the poor little thing.
Re:9/11 ? (Score:4, Informative)
exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
So we're the anthrax attacks no terrorist acts?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
november, 2011? Wasn't it supposed to be on 2012?
Its like Christmas in a shopping mall, you were expecting it to turn up in December but it arrives two months ahead of time.