Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government United States Privacy Your Rights Online Politics

The Private Outsourcing of US Intelligence Services 256

mrbluze writes "It appears that more and more of the data collection sanctioned by the US government is passed through the hands of private enterprise, Salon reports. 'Because of the cloak of secrecy thrown over the intelligence budgets, there is no way for the American public, or even much of Congress, to know how those contractors are getting the money, what they are doing with it, or how effectively they are using it. The explosion in outsourcing has taken place against a backdrop of intelligence failures for which the Bush administration has been hammered by critics, from Saddam Hussein's fictional weapons of mass destruction to abusive interrogations that have involved employees of private contractors operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Aftergood and other experts also warn that the lack of transparency creates conditions ripe for corruption.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Private Outsourcing of US Intelligence Services

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:17AM (#19362137)
    "Well, we can't keep our data secure, so we thought, why bother?"
  • by Joebert ( 946227 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:20AM (#19362147) Homepage
    It's when I read stories about messed up governments that make me glad I live in, damn.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm not defending this bullshit, but seriously, would you rather live in China, Venezuela, or Russia?

      My country good or bad, but my country.

      The nice thing is, we're about to hit a peak for this round of government incompetence and it's going to sour peoples stomachs on this style of governance for a long time to come. I think we're about to enter the clean up period, if we aren't already in the early stages of it now.
      • by Joebert ( 946227 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:53AM (#19362255) Homepage

        My country good or bad, but my country.
        Unless you're in politics, you just live here.
        • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @10:21AM (#19363259)
          I've realized the US actually is more dedicated to the ideals/religion of capitalism than it is to its citizens. If somebody else can do the job better or cheaper, we admit defeat and they're welcome to our markets, or to simply move here. (Of course, the "true believers" will never, ever recognize any conflict between serving global economic utility vs. the best interest of US citizens).

          On one hand, this makes perfect sense: shouldn't everybody's opportunities depend on their merit instead of where they were born? On the other hand, why would somebody fight and die to protect what amounts to a big corporation which isn't loyal in return?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm not defending this bullshit, but seriously, would you rather live in China, Venezuela, or Russia?

        At the moment, for me, in my situation? Yes.

        I'm an American that lives in China.

        Never had any problems over here.
        -I have a nice job that I like.
        -I walk 15 minutes to work.
        -I stop at the street vendor to buy a few beers on my way home.
        -I'm learning a language most Westerners don't know
        -I'm living in a country most Westerners will never see
        -I see movies on DVD before most Americans see them in the theater. :)
      • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @04:18PM (#19365869)

        I'm not defending this bullshit, but seriously, would you rather live in China, Venezuela, or Russia?

        My country good or bad, but my country.
        I believe the quote you are reaching for is, "My country, right or wrong!"

        Except, that's not the whole story. The actual quotation is really:
        "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
        --Carl Schurz [bartleby.com]
  • Spies 'r Us (Score:3, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:20AM (#19362153)
    pay me to observe the posts of the notoriously secretive and suspected Al Quaida member Anonymous Coward.
    • by mpe ( 36238 )
      pay me to observe the posts of the notoriously secretive and suspected Al Quaida member Anonymous Coward.

      Unfortunatly they have run out of money. Looks like it was all given to an Australian firm run by Terry Wrist and Al Kyder.
  • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:22AM (#19362159) Homepage
    The "intelligence" failure was in the White House and it's coterie of civilian hit men sent to the Pentagon and the CIA. They simply chose crap, dismissed data they were told was garbage and ignored contrary facts presented to them. Analysts were quitting on principle; I remember them being interviewed in 1992. The PNACers used a hack, Tenet, to put a stamp on their fabricated package of dog poo. Then, after the lies hit the fan, they BLAMED THE INTEL THEY WERE TOLD WAS CRAP. Retch and repeat. And since the Niger documents were a known forgery even then, when do we ask the question: who commissioned the forgeries?
    • by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:33AM (#19362197)
      I take your point about the White House only hearing what they want to hear and making it up when thats not the case. However political interference aside there was also a large failure on the part of the intelligence services to gather accurate information mainly due to few in place assets, regional antipathy to the US and the willingness of the intelligence services to pay for information which led to a glut of 'informants' spouting whatever made up crap they thought US agents would pay to hear.
      • by alfredo ( 18243 )
        They also ignored intelligence from countries that they don't like. The French have a fine intelligence service that has vast knowledge of the Mideast (especially Afghanistan), and experience in countering terrorism. Instead of listening to them, they called them "Cheese eating surrender monkeys."

        France tried to warn us in January 2001.

        ASA veteran 65-69 4th USASAFS 66-69
      • Content-spin of collected intelligence to fit a political agenda failed US!

        Our Warriors have never and will never fail US, but politicized DOD policy/tactics
        and political GOs failed US, and caused catastrophic results for US, which would not
        have been possible without "content-spin-lies" by some political GOs, Bush, Chaney,
        Rice, Rumsfeld ... and a "New World Order"/"New-Conservatism.

        Content-spin is continuing as if creating a plausible denial history of information
        for posterity and the legacy of failure. Cri
  • by DreamerFi ( 78710 ) <john.sinteur@com> on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:25AM (#19362165) Homepage
    "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. "
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      275 million a day people, and for what? A * war for freedom *?? Who's freedom??? KBR, Raytheon, Haliburton, and any other crony given U.S. taxpayer dollars (on no open bid contracts no less, what a crock of shit) is who and their FINANCIAL FREEDOM! Now, guess who's paying for it? Answer - U.S. Citizenry. Out Bushby & Darth Cheney, OUT - because all you do Mr. Bush & Mr. Cheney is line the pockets of those that put you in office at the expense of U.S. citizens fighting wars that have no basis in fact
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:26AM (#19362169) Homepage Journal
    only listening to what they want to hear, I just got a business idea:


    Mr. Bush, Iran is responsible for all the problems in the world, and invading will cause no problems whatsoever. This report will cost you a billion dollars, thank you!
  • Spying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by im just cannonfodder ( 1089055 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:34AM (#19362199) Homepage
    the great thing about private companies doing the governments dirty work, is that there is no way to obtain the infomation, these secrets are just that. and this is new how? the Americans have been spying on the British the British on the Australians and the Australians on America for decades, each country is not allowed to spy on their own ppl but they can spy on another country and then share the information, and the biggest bonus is plausible deniability. http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/ [ukonline.co.uk]
    • It's different in that with a private company, they can spy on anyone. The only accountability would be the courts -- but if they are staffed with evangelicals and the Foundation loyalists, then nobody will call them to account.

      For instance, the outrage over the Total Information Awareness program put the kibosh on the government doing it. But, convicted felon Poindexter is starting it up in the private sector... notice all those databases that keep getting broken into? Notice the ho-hum reaction of the gov
  • by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:41AM (#19362217)
    ...of information, not to mention the law, suggest that all of the secrecy can lead to corruption, as though it may happen. I'd argue that we're well past that point- the first sign that something is amiss is the unprecedented secrecy. The surveillance and other illegal acts are just window dressing.
    • all of the secrecy can lead to corruption, as though it may happen. I'd argue that we're well past that point- the first sign that something is amiss is the unprecedented secrecy. The surveillance and other illegal acts are just window dressing.
      Actually, the secrecy is a sign of corruption.
    • by Deagol ( 323173 )
      Last Thursday, the Diane Rehm show had a segment [wamu.org] on this very topic, talking with the author of the book "Nation of Secrets". Show available in Real or Windows Media format. Very interesting topic.
  • This sounds like an easy way around the CIA's domestic spying restrictions.

    Would a private contractor be subject to any of these restrictions?
  • by Lavene ( 1025400 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @07:13AM (#19362329)
    Every time the non-native English speakers (and USA hater) read something about the American intelligence it cracks us up. This is because we almost automatically interpret the word 'intelligence' as in 'intelligent'. So reading about outsourcing the American Intelligence really spurs some fun reactions, like "That's a good idea", "do they have any?", "Must be a simple task" and so on and so on.

    Really, we simply can not stop ridiculing you when you have words that sounds like a joke to the rest of the world.
  • Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @07:13AM (#19362331)
    One thing I've never understood about the USA is why Americans seem completely bind to the corruption within their own system. Example - Dick Cheney - until he became Vice President he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton Energy Services, he is still a major stockholder. Then, the Iraq war happened, apparently a driving force behind that was Cheney. Do you guys not have the concept of "conflict of interest"?

    Is the problem that in school you have it drummed into you how great the USA is, and so don't see the problems? (Sorry I realise this post is a bit trollish, but it is a genuine question).
    • Re:Corruption (Score:4, Informative)

      by cfulmer ( 3166 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @07:56AM (#19362511) Journal
      You're right -- it's trollish, mainly because it's wrong. Go to fact check here [factcheck.org] for the actual truth. Cheney has received some deferred compensation and turned over a bunch of his stock options to charity. Apart from that, he has no continuing interest.
      • Why are all the document links dead? Every PDF document they say they have is gone.
      • Re:Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)

        by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @09:13AM (#19362883)
        You're right -- it's trollish, mainly because it's wrong. Go to fact check here for the actual truth. Cheney has received some deferred compensation and turned over a bunch of his stock options to charity. Apart from that, he has no continuing interest.

        Which is still complete bullshit. At the end of his term Haliburton will be paying Mr. Cheney plenty for speaking engagements or as a advisory. He's done what he can to defuse the direct appearance of corruption but still makes numerous choices to benefit this one organization at the expense of US tax payers and US future interests. Why were so many no bid contracts awarded to a company he had an association with? Both the president and the vice were major parts of this company. Why is so much money flowing in that direction. You basically have 2 Amoral corporate agents posing as your head of state and alternate.

        Congratulations on the rapidly declining dollar. A direct consequence of people like you who ignore the big picture and dwell on simple PR talking points and who feel overly invested in a political position that has not worked in your interest for a long time now. You international political and economic influence is waning and you continue to make decision in both government and corporately to expedite the fall of the American empire.
        • by SirKron ( 112214 )

          Sounds like we outsourced our presidency and vice-presidency to Haliburton from your description.

          As a member of our military I am all for outsourcing of duties. It is just like corporate America, if you can completely define a subtask, lighten your load by outsourcing it. I would rather pay a little more now for someone to happily complete my task ontime than to give it to a government/military employee that will get bored, take forever, and eventually retire with an expensive pension.

          However, I feel

          • Sounds like we outsourced our presidency and vice-presidency to Haliburton from your description.

            Thats an interesting way to put it. I might agree with that assessment of my comment.

            As a member of our military I am all for outsourcing of duties. It is just like corporate America, if you can completely define a subtask, lighten your load by outsourcing it. I would rather pay a little more now for someone to happily complete my task ontime than to give it to a government/military employee that will get bored,
      • by ozbird ( 127571 )
        Apart from that, he has no continuing interest.

        Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
      • You're right -- it's trollish, mainly because it's wrong. Go to fact check here [factcheck.org] for the actual truth. Cheney has received some deferred compensation and turned over a bunch of his stock options to charity. Apart from that, he has no continuing interest.

        He's working for Haliburton [cbsnews.com] while getting paid by the taxpayers.

        How many no-bid contracts will it take to get that through your +1 Cursed Shield Of Mental Delusions? How many overcharging and tainted food scandals before you accept reality in place of your rosy fantasy?

    • War Profiteering is a criminal act which aids the enemy;
      Therefor, I believe, we speak of TREASON by at least a
      vice-president and maybe a few others, but Bush was just
      a puppet in all this. For Bush, I can only support life
      in prison. For Chaney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others it could
      be much worse for them, but truly much better for US.

      No, I am not silly enough to ever expect impeachment and
      TREASON investigation in a plutocrat Corporatist society.
      In a Democratic Society, it would be different.

      Always vote politici
      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        Treason is only for playing chess these days. Selling a lot of weapons to Iran, skimming a bit off the top for a red sportscar and then destroying a lot of government documents to cover your tracks doesn't even stop you from getting a plum defence job later on.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Guuge ( 719028 )

      As indicated by a couple of the replies to your post, one problem seems to be willful ignorance. Some people are willing to put absolute trust and faith in Cheney. They think it's just a spectacular coincidence that the administration is pouring vast amounts of our money into Halliburton. These are the people who believe that the Commander-in-Chief has military authority over all the population, and should never be disobeyed.

      We need the education to ensure that these people are always in the minority, and

    • Lots of good posts above me so I'll just add this:

      The vast majority of Americans are too busy paying for their refinanced second and third mortgages, taking their kids to baby yoga, and watching American Idol to even notice what is going on, i.e. they might as well be zombies. Seriously. Of the percentage who even have an opinion, the majority simply parrot whatever their commentator of choice has to say on the subject, be it O'Reilly or Olbermann. The remaining fraction who have the ability to see the trut
    • Cheney doesn't have a "conflict of interest", he has an "interest for conflict"
  • The purpose of outsourcing is avoiding the rules and laws of government, and achieving greater secrecy.

    A secret government is a corrupt government.

    The present intensification of secrecy began in the late 40's with establishment of the idea that the government could secretly manipulate governments and kill people to protect the profits of U.S. companies, particularly oil companies.

    With enough secrecy, a government becomes a dictatorship.

    Both Cheney [futurepower.org] and Junior [futurepower.org] are alcoholics, with typical alcoholi
  • outsourced (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jeek Elemental ( 976426 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @07:23AM (#19362363)
    this explains the change in dresscode at some indian call centers, to dark sunglasses and suits
    • by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @08:03AM (#19362537)
      Me: Hello is that the Dell call center?

      Tech: Your security clearance is not high for me to divulge that information to you.

      Me: What you mean you cant tell if this is the Dell help desk or not?

      Tech: Well I could tell you but then I would have to kill you.

      Me: FFS is this the Dell help desk or not

      Tech: Yes.

      Me: OK Good. I am having a probem with my laptop... wait a sec, why has it just started ticking? auto destruct in 5...4... WTF?
  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @07:23AM (#19362367) Homepage

    It's happening all through government. Military and GS people flipping over to contractors literally overnight. Same people doing the exact same job. Khaki on Friday, shirt and tie on Monday. Somehow they appear to have waived the conflict of interest clauses in military service that were supposed to keep that from happening.

    I don't have that many contacts in the intelligence services but I wouldn't be surprised to find the same trend there. I'm betting a lot of the intelligence contracting were government people one day, private contractors the next.

    Either way this is a bad trend. There are some things we want the government to do, even though you can argue it costs more and is less efficient. That's okay. Some services have considerations that need to go beyond the bottom line. Aside from that there appears to be little accountability in contract awards these days and many seem to have political overtones. High level positions going to people whose chief qualification seems to be that they graduated from Oral Roberts University.

    If there's an encouraging sign it's that we're...finally...starting to see some outrage from those calling themselves conservatives. Better late than never I guess.

    • by r00t ( 33219 )
      In the government, the good person can't be paid well. That would violate all sorts of stupid government rules. The only way to pay the person well is if they are not considered a person, but a business.

      In the government, nobody can fire the differently abled buddhist afro-american transsexual. It can slack off all it wants, generally fuck things up, etc. Competent people aren't all willing to stomach having to deal with that in a coworker, boss, or underling.

      Lots of competent people don't wish to pee in a
      • Lots of competent people don't wish to pee in a cup. A few may be light drug users that would still manage to do good work. The rest are just insulted that anybody would suggest that drugs might be in use.
        And then there are the ones who simply don't like their privacy invaded on principle.
      • Lots of competent people don't wish to pee in a cup. A few may be light drug users that would still manage to do good work. The rest are just insulted that anybody would suggest that drugs might be in use.

        Sadly, the case is actually the reverse.

        All the big government contractors require their regular employees to pee in a cup as a condition of employment, just as do most large employers in any business sector in the USA. However, the government itself does not require drug testing for a secret clearance, even higher level clearances just require that you be willing to take a test if questions arise and if you refuse the test, your clearance is revoked. Said questions only arise under exceptional circumsta

  • Fictional WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IWantMoreSpamPlease ( 571972 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @08:02AM (#19362533) Homepage Journal
    I don't recall hearing *any* politician, regardless of the country they are in, but especially the Congressional ones, apologize, or otherwise admit they were wrong regarding these WMDs.

    They were all hell-bent on starting a quick war, perhaps in the hopes of cleaning up in the polls and making themselves look good (which, they should know by now, is impossible in the eyes of the American people and perhaps the world).

    It was not just our President who was convinced, but Congress was as well, even the notoriously liberal (in all the wrong ways) Kennedy, who said, and I quote here:

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    and one from Mr. "I invented the Interwebs":

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    Whether we went in looking for nukes or bacteria is moot, we are there now, but those that saw the war take an unfavourable turn (and apparently know nothing of history, the losses we have incurred there are miniscule compared to, say WW2 island hopping losses) have hardly admitted their mistake in being for it.

    The hypocrasy surrounding the entire Iraq was is astounding.
    • Well, there's a subtle and important difference between saying: "we know that Saddam has been searching for WMD, and we assume he still is searching", and "we know that Saddam currently has WMD, and that's why we attack now". The first part of the former is provably true, and the assumption not necessarily incorrect. The latter is a blatant lie.
    • by lawpoop ( 604919 )
      Why should the Congress apologize when Bush fed them faulty intelligence? The Congress doesn't have it's own intel program. Any intelligence they get comes from the Executive branch. The quotes you take from Liberal senators was from 2002. The war in Iraq didn't start until March 20th 2003. They just were repeating the false intelligence and horror stories the Bush administration had fed them in private security briefings. We didn't find out about the WMD lies until well after the war was over.

      Whey are y
    • by MLease ( 652529 )
      Yes, Congress was complicit in entering Iraq, but then again, they were spoon-fed disinformation from the executive branch regarding the WMDs. I can understand why they went along, in the post-9/11 atmosphere, and given the poor information they had. However, there were a number of people (myself included) who were opposed from day 1, and were unhappy with Congress for not standing up and demanding better evidence.

      WMDs were the excuse, chosen by the President and his cronies, to drum up enough support for
  • There is more than anyone wants to know about (USA) prime-contractors, sub-contracting (China, India ...) out software projects for (1997-present) all government systems and agencies. It is all very funny at this point, "Don't Worry, Be Happy, Ignorance is Bliss for US, EU.... We are betrayed more by our own arrogance and incompetence in government, then any prime-contractor.

    If you have core business requirements/products, which you contract out to others, then expect eventually to be filling for bankruptcy and begging forgiveness of the Board and Shareholders for giving the business away. If management is incompetent (true for US, decades), making bad or criminal decisions, it does not matter how hard the rank&file Warriors and Citizens work and sacrifice, the enterprise is going out of business.

    Our present political, military (checkout NPR General stories), and civil-service is weighted with management that says GetItDone, has super socializing skills, takes credit for GettingThingsDone, and nepotisticly distributes blame for FailingToDo to any opposition/lamb, and across the rank&file Warriors' and Citizens' who do the work and sacrifice. I expect to hear years from now that Bush, Chaney ... failed, because of liberals, but if liberals did not exist, then (like Napoleon, Hitler ...) Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld ... would express a form of "If they cannot win for me, then they die for me" (luckily they have the democrats).

    Congress will never impeach Bush/Chaney and DoD (Do or Die) Rumsfeld's bobble-head selected military leaders will perpetuate a politicized and socially approved career path to the four-star level. Military/Intelligence performance is blamed on everything and everyone, except for the (new-spin) Politically-Correct and socially acceptable [[no Warriors, Planners, Commanders, fags, or atheist need apply]]. Warriors, Planners, Commanders... are to be relegated to the tactical level only where they are needed, which will allow General Managers (as in business) to market themselves and maybe eventually become president/CEO (retirement by bankruptcy).

    DOD/Intelligence needs to be freed from oppression of politics, not further politicized by promoting fart-eating, shit-sucking, ass-kissing, bullshitters in the GO and SES community as vapor-success performers. Rank&File Warriors and Citizens do the jobs, politicized management personnel are bottom-feeders and scavengers of the USA workplace (Business, Religion, Government, Military).
  • by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @08:49AM (#19362785)
    I dare you to read the full speech that Bush made to the UN prior to the second Iraq war. You just may realize that the press has been lying to you, or at least obfuscating the truth. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
    Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly
    New York, New York

    10:39 A.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear. [slashdot.org]

    We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

    The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

    Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

    As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

    Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

    [slashdot.org] Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

    Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to co

    • I dare you to read the full speech that Bush made to the UN prior to the second Iraq war. You just may realize that the press has been lying to you, or at least obfuscating the truth.

      I can't figure out your point. I read a speech where Bush makes deliberately misleading statements about Iraq's WMD capabilities and activities. Are you trying to say that the press has been covering up the level of his prevarications? Or are you naive enough to believe that whatever a politician says is the god's honest truth with not even a hint of dissembly?

      BTW, for anyone wondering where that speech came from: It's here. [whitehouse.gov]

      • by N8F8 ( 4562 )
        In the entire speech there is only one questionable statement "buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium...". In retrospect the likely use was in making better Scud missiles.

        Now, what proof do you offer? Are you crazy? Are you hallucinating some other text? Virtually every other assertion is credited to UN reports. BTW, I worked in the intelligence field at the time he made this speech so I know the "facts" even though the Democrats in Congress pretend otherwise. At the time they saw the same

        • I worked in the intelligence field at the time he made this speech so I know the "facts"

          Baloney. Don't try to pull a false appeal to authority on me. You had no need to know, you were not cleared for access, the best you might have known were no more than rumors one step above what the public hears. And if you *had* been cleared, you would not be talking about the details on slashdot.

          In the entire speech there is only one questionable statement "buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium...".

          More baloney. For example, the entire bit about anthrax was pure deception. The referenced defector, Hussein Kamal, revealed a program that had existed prior to 1991 and was (at the time in 1994) long defun

          • by N8F8 ( 4562 )
            I was a duty CINCLANT Intel Specialist. I had codeword access and I reviewed EVERYTHING coming in on the message system plus special reports and helped develop the summary reports for local access. If you know anything about that field the last sentence should be a dead giveaway that I do know what I'm talking about (without violating any laws).

            As far as the anthrax info, without going into specific classified information, here is a contemporary DOD report [defendamerica.mil] that was released to the public.

            The Whitehouse is a

  • Transparency? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by binkless ( 131541 )
    Does anybody else find the idea of transparency in spying to be an odd conception?
  • by jefu ( 53450 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @02:33PM (#19365123) Homepage Journal

    For the the most interesting idea to come of this is that the government may be limited legally (increasingly not, admittedly) in the actions they can take directly, but may not be so limited if they hire someone to do it for them. For example, even if Congress gathers finds within themselves a bit of responsibility, ethics and manages to remember the constitution and the american people, and manages to restore Habeas Corpus and prohibit torture, the administration will probably just hire it out to "independent contractors" who, by being just that, independent, will not be subject to such laws. Make it all happen in another country (or a ship outside american waters) and Hey Presto! legal torture.

    Similarly, one can imagine contracting out censorship. The government itself may not be able to censor anything, but surely they could use black budgets to hire people (for example, the recently featured warriors for innocence) to do it for them, or even, one might imagine, paying CNN and Fox news to carefully pass over the kind of story that would give the government a black eye. And every time someone cried out "Censorship" people (you see it all the time here on /.) would say : "It isn't censorship if the government isn't doing it." And it wouldn't be the government, at least not directly.

    Even local governments or police departments might manage this. I don't think they can do it directly, but a bit of under the table funding for photographers catching people doing stuff that the local city administrators might find annoying (or even persuading some local rich person/company with the same kinds of interest to pay for the same thing) could go a very long ways.

    And no, this is not necessarily the kinds of actions I can only imagine a Republican administration doing. The Democrats are equally in love with power. And the libertarians would probably start with such actions - just cuz they fit in with their general philosophy.

    • Damn, meant to hit Preview, but hit submit instead. Lets see if I can post a (slightly cleaned up) revision to that.

      For me the the most interesting idea to come of this is that the government may be limited legally in the actions they can take directly, but may not be so limited if they hire someone to do it for them. For example, even if Congress finds within themselves their proper share of courage, independence, responsibility and ethics and manages to remember the constitution and that the ameri

    • by PPH ( 736903 )
      Interesting point. The fourth Amendment applies to the powers of the goverment, not of private parties. On the other hand, it is a felony to lie to federal officials. Unless there is the intent to commit fraud, no such prohibition exists between private parties.

      You need my Social Security Number for other than legally required tax reporting purposes? Sure, no problem. I've got a whole list of them. Pick one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by leabre ( 304234 )
      The best way to shore this up, is, if a private contractor is operating on behalf of or under contract for the government, it then becomes subject to the constitution and the same restrictions the government itself is governed by. Otherwise, what you describe, seems like a very wide loop-hole to make corrup entities even more corrupt. And in this day and age where everyone can escape accountability except non-rich individuals, we need less loop-holes. While we're at it, lets restore the law so that the "
  • Old news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Saturday June 02, 2007 @06:18PM (#19366683) Homepage Journal
    The U.S. government has been outsourcing intel work since at least the 1970s. They've also had problems with that outsourcing. See The Falcon and the Snowman [amazon.com].

    Cheers,
    Dave

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...