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