Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:02PM   Printer-friendly

On Monday at the Center for Strategic & International Studies' Global Security Forum, John Brennan, Director of the US' Central Intelligence Agency, spoke about the recent bombings in Paris. In what many commentators took as a reference to Edward Snowden, but could instead refer to the Church Committee, Brennan predicted that finding the attackers will be more difficult than it would have been, had intelligence services been left unchecked:

In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of hand-wringing over the government's role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities.

[...]

There are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult both technically as well as legally for intelligence security services to have insight that they need to uncover it.

Brennan's complete remarks are available in video via C-SPAN.

[Additional coverage after the break]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:29PM

    by davester666 (155) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:29PM (#265026)

    From the Commander-In-Chief:

    The US does not make good decisions "based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks"

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34859604 [bbc.com]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:35PM

    by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:35PM (#265031) Homepage Journal

    I am no fan of the man, but I agree with him wholeheartedly here.

    I saw this earlier today: 6 Reasons to Welcome Refugees after Paris [fee.org].

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:39PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:39PM (#265067) Journal

      Quite the opposite reaction from me. How 'bout we accept women and children, and all those military age males we hand them a real assault rifle, and send them back home to fight for their country?

      BTW - at least one of the Paris attackers was in possession of a Syrian passport that indicated he was a "refugee". It's not certain that the passport legally belonged to the man who was carrying it, but he did indeed have a refugee's passport.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:56PM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:56PM (#265083) Homepage Journal

        Well, I don't believe in "we," so we should each be able to make our decision on that.

        BTW - at least one of the Paris attackers was in possession of a Syrian passport that indicated he was a "refugee". It's not certain that the passport legally belonged to the man who was carrying it, but he did indeed have a refugee's passport.

        That's actually addressed as point 1 in the link I posted, but nobody ever reads those. :)

        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:54AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:54AM (#265197) Journal

          Gotcha! I did click the link. I did read your link. As stated, I disagree with it.

          • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:35PM

            by jdavidb (5690) on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:35PM (#265389) Homepage Journal
            Man, that cheats me out of a chance to make a "noone ever reads the articles around here" joke...
            --
            ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:51PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:51PM (#265130)

        How 'bout we accept women and children, and all those military age males we hand them a real assault rifle, and send them back home to fight for their country?

        I apologize profusely for being born male. It's entirely my fault. Women and children are inherently more valuable than me. Male children will become worthless once they reach some arbitrary age, though.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:24AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:24AM (#265208) Journal

          You're looking at it inside out, upside down, and backwards all at the same time. Women and children are of no value on the battlefield. Unless, of course, you need a human shield, like so many Muslim fighters do.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:44AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:44AM (#265213)

            Women and children are of no value on the battlefield.

            Not necessarily true.

            But I know that I wouldn't want to be sent to some battlefield merely because I'm male and past some arbitrary age. Don't they have the option of getting in as well, or is that simply blocked off for them?

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:36AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:36AM (#265240) Journal

              Serious answer? Historically, a lot of women have had major roles on the battlefield, but they seldom get any recognition. Children? Like most women, they are simply innocent bystanders and victims. It takes a low-life barbarian to hide behind women's skirts, it takes an even lower form of life to hide behind children. For the most part, women and children on the battlefield are of very little if any value.

              Call me a chauvinist, but the best roles for most women in regards to warfare are in support. Intelligence analysis, medical services, logistics, records keeping, planning strategy and tactics. Women aren't generally great in combat, for the same reasons we don't see women in professional football.

              If you decide that I'm a chauvinist, be aware that I'm not one who would bar women from fighting. If the woman in question can pass minimum requirements for strength, stamina, agility, etc etc, she's more than welcome to bear the burden. Just PLEASE don't argue that the diminutive, petite little things who can't hold a rifle steady should be on the front lines. That argument borders on insanity.

              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:45AM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:45AM (#265243)

                It takes a low-life barbarian to hide behind women's skirts, it takes an even lower form of life to hide behind children.

                I don't value women or children any more than I value men.

                And I'm not arguing that we should send women and children to the battlefield, but that we shouldn't force men out into the battlefield while allowing women and children in.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:38AM (#265241)

        [...] all those military age males we hand them a real assault rifle, and send them back home to fight for their country?

        Would you let them choose which side they'll join, or would you suggest one to them, that in your mind best represents "their country"? Would you ask these untrained soldiers to fight for Bashar al-Assad's government? For the Islamic State? Or for that elusive faction that opposes Assad but also opposes IS? If you tried to choose sides for them, don't you think they'd go against your wishes? Certainly I would be inclined to do so, if my request for asylum were rebuffed in the manner you propose. I would also form a resentment against your country, even as the rest of my family sought refuge there. Would my family members, who you accepted because they were children, females, or old men, agree with your disposition of me, your attempt to turn me into a warrior, or could they become ungrateful? Suppose I fought for the side you asked me to, and died heroically. Would they be proud that I died a hero's death, or would they rather I still lived?

        Suppose these males, who didn't want any part of the war, decide that, now that their families have been broken up, they may as well kill after all—and just start shooting at whoever's in range, Ft. Hood [wikipedia.org] style? You want to put unmotivated men with rifles into a war where poison gas, jet fighters, bombers, and tanks are being used. I notice you didn't mention training, nor resupply. Come to think of it, you didn't mention ammunition—I'm assuming you'd provide them with a bullet or two? If they chose to fight, what chance would they have and how much difference could they make? The rational things for them to do would be to promptly desert or surrender.

        Speaking of rationality, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said [un.org] "there is no military solution to the crisis—not in Syria or anywhere else."

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:13PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:13PM (#265358) Journal

          Good questions and silly questions all bundled together. Cool.

          Yes, of course, they get training. The same sort of training our soldiers get before going to war as part of an infantry company. Yes, they get ammo to go with those rifles. Yes, the get resupply. And, I prefer they serve any force in the field, so long as it is not Daesh. They can join the Kurds, the Yazidi, Assad, any force that has boots on the ground, and fights against Daesh. I'm not choosy.

          As for breaking up families - whoop-ti-do. The family is already broken up, not through my doing. I have a man, a wife, and 1 to 12 children standing in line. Where's Grandma? Grandpa? (That's two each, of each - four persons.) Where are all the aunts and uncles, cousins, second cousins, etc ad nauseum? I am merely encouraging that man to go back and fight for his family, and providing him the means to fight.

  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:17PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:17PM (#265051)

    Instead, the US makes bad decisions based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks. The existence of mass surveillance, the TSA, etc. is proof of that. We know he doesn't oppose all of that (the so-called "Freedom act" still allows the mass surveillance to continue, so it is no reform), so I am not sure why he is saying that.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:53PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:53PM (#265082) Journal

      You trust the purpose of the government more than I do. I would put it "It makes decisions that citizens consider bad and uses hysteria as a justifier."

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:43PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:43PM (#265125)

        I wasn't merely speaking of the government. You have more trust in the ignorant majority than I do. From what I see, not very many people genuinely care about freedom. If safety can be used successfully by the government to justify violating the constitutional and our fundamental liberties, that means many people do not value freedom.