Cool story, bro.
Apparently your reading comprehension is a little lacking, as again, that has nothing to do with what Navy Information Warfare Officers do. At all.
But if it makes you feel better to believe that, be my guest. It's not at all uncommon to see slashdot commenters wish to wallow in ignorance.
You have no understanding whatsoever of Navy Information Warfare. This might give you an idea.
As I have explained on slashdot before, while most people look to a generic definition of "information warfare" and immediately think "propaganda" (which even then is only one small piece of IW, or what the US now calls "Information Operations" in doctrine), this actually has nothing to do with with 99% of Navy Information Warfare officers actually do.
The Navy Information Warfare Community was renamed from "Cryptology" a few years ago when everything "cyber" started getting big. Navy IW officers do signals intelligence (SIGINT), and "cyber" ("computer network operations", or CNO), to the exclusion of nearly everything else, against foreign adversary targets.
Yes, sometimes Navy IW Officers get put in billets where they are doing traditional "IO" (as they did in Iraq, for example), of which even then "propaganda" is a very small piece. But that has nothing to do with the job of nearly all Navy IW officers, and even when that happens, it's all in foreign theaters (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan).
When I post on slashdot, as I have done for about 15 years, I have always done so as myself. You might disagree with me, but that doesn't make me someone you imagine to be a shill. It makes me someone you disagree with. And no matter what my jobs are, I'm posting here on my own time, with my own opinions, as me.
I do find it amusing that so many on slashdot can't stomach the idea that it's possible for people to have differing views without being paid for them, or automatically assume politics. It illustrates one of my initial points about people falling neatly into political boxes quite nicely; thank you. It's also amusing that you believe, by default, that no developments in the world may ever be worthy of US military intervention.
No, I know, I know...you're one of those types who believes that "war" is all an excuse to line the pockets of some imagined elite, that what the US does is "no different" (or usually worse) than any other nation, and that the US is the source of evil and conflict in the world. It's an interesting, if bizarre, position, and it's always been fascinating to me.
I'm sure the modern world after WWII would have been quite free of major conflicts where millions of lives would be lost, and safe for principles of freedom and liberal democracy without significant US investment. After all, it's not like there was anything else in the world opposed to those views, and I'm sure Iran and North Korea represent no threat to these ideals, and that China's massively accelerating military spending and aspirations to replace the US as a global steward will leave the world in a better place, what with their shining record on personal freedom, freedom of information, and human rights.
Don't worry, China is on track to outpace the US in military expenditures by 2023. I'm sure that's all for "peaceful regional defense" and will have no impact on the US.
China's military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212
The dragon's new teeth: A rare look inside the world's biggest military expansion
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193
Essential reading on China cyber:
The Online Threat: Should we be worried about a cyber war? (The first page of this is a must read wrt China.)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/01/101101fa_fact_hersh
Great snippet: ""The N.S.A. would ask, 'Can the Chinese be that good?' " the former official told me. "My response was that they only invented gunpowder in the tenth century and built the bomb in 1965. I'd say, 'Can you read Chinese?' We don't even know the Chinese pictograph for 'Happy hour.'"
To say nothing of the more recent news.
But yes, yes...this is all about "false flag" attacks, because naturally the US is always the evil aggressor, and there has never been any oppression or tyranny in the world, save for what the US has foisted upon it. The principles of freedom for which the US stands are just an illusion force fed to a compliant public by the lapdog mainstream press. In fact, we probably have secret time machines so we could extend this evil beyond our nation's short existence in this world. That explains all the bad things that happened before we were around.
No, I think the simple fact of the matter is that we disagree. I note how in all your responses to me you cleverly insinuate (or just flat out say) that I am doing something like "leading" the discussion away from a topic, as if merely asserting it makes it so. I am well aware of what happened here: the administration's policy changed with respect to Iraq, and they were looking for reasons to support a military action. Since it was thought that Saddam still had stockpiles of WMD, that would be a pretty darned good public justification to put forth, don't you think?
On any topic for which intelligence work is even required, there is ALWAYS contradictory information and differing analytic viewpoints. People like yourself choose only to see the contradictory information, in hindsight, to the exclusion of all other supporting information. Others may, just as inappropriately, do the opposite. I believe I stated fairly clearly I did not think the Iraq invasion as a particularly good idea; however, that is only my opinion and history will be the ultimate judge. None of this changes the veracity of anything I said in my initial comment.
No "weaseling" here. And you missed the entire point of my comment to boot. Intelligence doesn't come from thin air - it exists to support the information needs and requirements of policymakers and commanders. Sometimes intelligence only exists after a question is asked. "Does Saddam Hussein have WMD?" "Did Iraq provide support to al Qaeda?" Of course WMD was "used" as the primary reason to invade Iraq, just as Pearl Harbor was "used" as a primary reason to enter WWII, and the Zimmermann Telegram was "used" as a primary reason to enter WWI. Do you think those were the only reasons? If not, does that mean our leaders were "lying"? Or is it possible that the reasons the US may enter a military conflict are fare more complex?
Personally, I don't think the Iraq invasion was a particularly good idea, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that doesn't change the facts about the purpose and application of intelligence I briefly highlighted in my comment. What is ironic to me is that you acknowledge the fact that Saddam had the capability and intent to possess WMD, and act as if that alone couldn't have been enough of a justification. The key point, as you observe, wasn't whether Iraq had WMD; it was that US policy toward Iraq changed, from one of containment to one of removal of Saddam Hussein.
Yes, and let me guess: my job is to argue with people on slashdot, in order to secretly "defend" an administration that has been out of office for over an entire Presidential term, for a war that is over. That about sum up the implication? If slashdot commenters are good for one thing, it's amusement. Myself included.
The motto of CIA's National Clandestine Service is the Latin "Veritatem Cognoscere": Know the truth. It's no wonder that so many believe the function of intelligence services is to discover the "truth".
Mark Lowenthal, former CIA Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, spent some time in his book "Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy", now the gold standard for undergraduate and graduate intelligence texts, explaining that intelligence is not about truth at all, but rather about arriving at some informed conclusion about reality, or possible future realities, neither of which can be considered strictly to be "truth".
"Intelligence is not about truth. If something were known to be true, states would not need intelligence agencies to collect the information or analyze it. Truth is such an absolute term that it sets a standard that intelligence rarely would be able to achieve. It is better - and more accurate - to think of intelligence as proximate reality. Intelligence agencies face issues or questions and do their best to arrive at a firm understanding of what is going on. They can rarely be assured that even their best and most considered analysis is true. Their goals are intelligence products that are reliable, unbiased, and honest (that is, free from politicization). These are all laudable goals, yet they are still different from truth."
Perhaps the biggest issue with "truth" in intelligence work is the absolute nature of "truth". If it is an analyst's job to find the "truth", then any deviation from that analysis by actual events means that the analysis was a "lie".
"Is intelligence truth-telling? One of the common descriptions of intelligence is that it is the job of 'telling truth to power'. (This sounds fairly noble, although it is important to recall that court jesters once had the same function.) Intelligence, however, is not about truth. (If something is known to be true then we do not need intelligence services to find it out.) Yet the image persists and carries with it some important ethical implications. If truth were the objective of intelligence, does that raise the stakes for analysis? [...] A problem with setting truth as a goal is that it has a relentless quality. [...if] an analyst's goal is to tell the truth - especially to those in power who might not want to hear it - then there is no room for compromise, no possible admission of alternative views."
This creates an environment where success is impossible, because discovering "truth" by every measure is a standard that can never be reached. It also discourages differing analytic viewpoints, each of which may be equally valid. Ultimately, someone needs to look at the available information and make a decision:
"[T]he role of intelligence is not to tell the truth but to provide informed analysis to policy makers to aid their decision making."
Synthesizing information into some measure of "truth" needs to consider all of the above. What, then, happened to the "truth" in the case of this famous so-called "intelligence failure", that of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? The intelligence components of the US, Russia, France, Germany, and the UN as a whole believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of WMD, not to mention that Iraq was in material breach of no less than three binding and in-force UNSEC resolutions (the only kind of UN resolution with the "teeth" to compel member nations to use force to ensure compliance, unlike oft-cited General Assembly resolutions regarding Israel); witness this exchange on NBC's Meet the Press in 2004:
"MR. RUSSERT: When you look at the CIA information on the weapons of mass destruction, former President Clinton said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as well as current President Bush. The U.N. inspectors. The Russian, French and German intelligence agencies said he had weapons of mass destruction. What happened? How could there have been such a colossal intelligence failure?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, maybe because what we were all looking at was a body of evidence that gave you every reason to believe that he did have weapons of mass destruction. He had the intention. He used them. He stiffed the U.N. for 12 years. He had the infrastructure. He had the capability. The only thing we haven't been able to find are actual current stockpiles of such weapons. Everything else was there. Everything else was there with respect to capability and intention. And any reasonable person looking at this regime, looking at the threat inherent in that intention and capability would have come to the conclusion based on unanswered questions."
So, what was the truth? In this case, the truth, as established prior to 2003, is that Saddam Hussein had the intent and capability to possess WMD. Without physically discovering WMD themselves, all information, history, and evidence - even when viewed in the context of contradictory evidence - indicated that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Unfortunately, the most important aspect - namely, Iraq actually having WMD - ended up being absent. When the policy of containment with regard to Iraq changed to a more aggressive posture after 9/11, the truth pointed to Iraqi possession of WMD. This enabled policymakers to push forward with a policy to remove Saddam from power.
After the invasion, only then did we discover that the US analysis was almost all wrong. But was the analysis wrong? This is remembered by many, incorrectly, as an example of "politicized intelligence". In fact, it is simply an illustration of how intelligence is not about truth, but rather is a vehicle to inform the decisions of policy makers.
Furthermore, there is never "one" reason a military action may be undertaken. Does anyone honestly believe there was only a single publicly-discussed reason the US entered World War II? If there were more complex reasons than those put forth for public scrutiny, does that mean our leaders are "lying"? It's hilarious to me, if sad, that people tend to fall neatly in political boxes with respect to things like the Iraq invasion.
Intelligence exists solely to support policy makers. Most policy makers are politicians. This does not mean that intelligence itself is politicized, only that it is, necessarily, serving a political master.
The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths. - William James
There is no truth. There is only perception. - Gustave Flaubert
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr
The truth will set you free - but first it will make you angry! - Anonymous
It links to an AP story with the headline "Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson", which says...
GENEVA -- The search is all but over for a subatomic particle that is a crucial building block of the universe.
Physicists announced Thursday they believe they have discovered the subatomic particle predicted nearly a half-century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape.
The elusive particle, called a Higgs boson, was predicted in 1964 to help fill in our understanding of the creation of the universe, which many theorize occurred in a massive explosion known as the Big Bang. The particle was named for Peter Higgs, one of the physicists who proposed its existence, but it later became popularly known as the "God particle."
[...]
...no, no -- that's not how it's going to be "picked up".
Let's take a look:
NBC News: Particle confirmed as Higgs boson
Associated Press: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson
Reuters: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN
Wall Street Journal: New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find
FOX News: Physicists say they have found long-sought Higgs boson
Washington Post: A closer look at the Higgs boson particle that helps explain what gives matter size and shape
Chicago Tribune: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN
Sky News: Higgs Boson: Experts Sure Of 'God Particle'
New York Daily News: Physicists say they have discovered crucial subatomic particle known as Higgs boson
Boston Globe: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson
BBC (UK): LHC cements Higgs boson identification
BusinessWeek: Case for Higgs Boson Strengthened by New CERN Analysis
The Daily Mail (UK): Scientists say they HAVE found the 'God particle' - but admit they still aren't sure what type of Higgs boson it is
The Independent (UK): Have they found the Higgs boson at last? Cern physicists say they're confident of 'God particle' breakthrough
Telegraph (UK): Higgs boson: scientists confident they have discovered the 'God particle'
News Limited (AU): Higgs boson, the God particle, discovered by CERN
US News and World Report: Physicists Observe Higgs Boson, the Elusive 'God Particle'
None of these articles make any links to "God" other than a few -- mostly UK, not US -- sources referring to it as the so-called "God particle", but even those explain exactly what this particle is theorized to be, not anything supernatural, "proving God exists", or having anything whatever to do with God.
It is factually correct to say that there could be a hypothetical, however unlikely, future scenario where it would be both lawful and Constitutional for the President to authorize the use of military force within the United States. (This already occurred during the Civil War.) That would include any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". "Drones" are an evolution in warfare that started with the rock, the spear, the bow and arrow and continued with guns, cannons, bombs, and missiles â" nothing more.
The ONLY valid question is whether it is lawful to execute a military or covert action under some particular circumstance, and whether it is lawful and necessary to target an individual or a place. I'm not making those value judgments, but the tool used, while absolutely an enabler, is utterly and completely irrelevant. Furthermore, both Brennan's and Holder's responses are completely accurate and not contradictory. It is accurate to say that CIA does not have this authority in the United States, and it is accurate to say that there could be a scenario where the military would have such authority. There is no conflict, no subterfuge, no conspiracy.
People are conflating multiple things. The justification for targeted killing of US citizens OUTSIDE the US includes several narrow criteria, a key one of which is being OUTSIDE the US. Holder's response is that the President has the authority to use the military within the US, which is factually correct, and necessarily includes any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". So why would they be "ruled out"? I understand the arguments, but people are really conflating multiple issues, and don't seem to even understand why we're using unmanned aircraft where we're using them in the first place.
If Paul wants the President to "rule out" the use of some particular military tool on US soil, why isn't he also asking the President to "rule out" manned aircraft, guns, or anything else?
Even the Posse Comitatus Act is very straightforward:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
The "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress" allows domestic use of the military in cases authorized by Congress OR the Constitution. Many legal scholars would agree that the President's inherent Article II authority would allow such employment of the military -- as was the case with President Lincoln. This is not a new concept.
If people can't envision any case where it would ever be appropriate to use US military force on US soil, then they aren't very imaginative -- or knowledgeable of history.
Of course, if there ever were a September 11-scale event where it would be clearly appropriate to employ the US military on US soil, there would be a large contingent of Americans -- who I am ashamed to call fellow citizens -- would immediately think it was a "false flag operation" used as an excuse to carry out domestic military operations.
Paul doesn't really want debate; he is pandering to those who think the government is constantly looking for ways to "go after" Americans at home, and to people with this paranoia complex, it connects quite well.
...except for its completely different orbital path, direction of entry into Earth's atmosphere, and timing of the encounter with Earth, all of which definitively prove that it is not related to 2012 DA14.
No, but North Korea's nuclear device yields are getting bigger:
Here’s How Geology Shows North Korea’s Nukes Are Getting Bigger
"The antivirus industry has a dirty little secret: its products are often not very good at stopping viruses."
(The linked New York Times story is a great read.)
-August 11-12, 2012. The incident that began this case occurred.
-August 14, 2012. The incident was reported to Steubenville Police.
-August 16, 2012. Electronic devices of people who potentially had knowledge of the incident were taken, pursuant to search warrants.
-August 17, 2012. Steubenville Police request technical and investigative support from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation "BCI" (a state agency supervised by the Ohio Attorney General). At the request of Steubenville Police, BCI expedited the evidence analysis. The analysis involved uncovering and reviewing tens of thousands of emails, texts, and photos from approximately a dozen electronic devices. The vast majority of such data was unrelated to the case. Investigators and forensic examiners never found any video of the alleged crime.
-August 22, 2012. Based on the investigation of the Steubenville Police, two juvenile males were arrested and charged. Their names are Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond. Suspects remained in juvenile detention until November 1, 2012 when the Visiting Judge (from outside the county) assigned to the case placed the suspects on home arrest.
-August 28, 2012. County Prosecuting Attorney delegates her authority to special prosecutors from the Ohio Attorney General's Office.
-August 30, 2012. Steubenville Police meet with the special prosecutors.
-The Juvenile Court trial in this case is scheduled for February 13, 2013. Circumstances surrounding media and public access to that trial are controlled by the Visiting Judge.
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
