Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the depraved-indifferance dept.

Steven Aftergood of FAS Secrecy News reports that the Intelligence Community Directive 191 signed by James Clapper on July 21st includes an obligation to protect endangered persons under certain circumstances:

Intelligence agencies that discover a threat to a person's life or safety are obliged to alert the intended target in most cases as long as they can do so without compromising intelligence sources and methods, a new intelligence community directive instructs.

A U.S. intelligence agency "that collects or acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping directed at a person or group of people shall have a duty to warn the intended victim or those responsible for protecting the intended victim, as appropriate," the new directive states. "This includes threats where the target is an institution, place of business, structure, or location." Remarkably, "the term intended victim includes both U.S. persons... and non-U.S. persons."

The "duty to warn" obligation, which in principle dates back at least several decades, was formally established last month by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper in Intelligence Community Directive 191, July 21, 2015. It is not binding in all circumstances, however. Notification of the target would be waived if it "would unduly endanger U.S. government personnel, sources, methods, intelligence operations, or defense operations."

The notification requirement also does not apply in cases where the threat emanates from the U.S. government itself, whether in combat operations or in "covert" targeted killing programs. Thus, the directive states that the requirement would be appropriately waived when "There is a reasonable basis for believing that the intended victim is a terrorist, a direct supporter of terrorists, an assassin, a drug trafficker, or involved in violent crimes." Likewise, no notification would be required in cases where "The intended victim is at risk only as a result of the intended victim's participation in an insurgency, insurrection, or other armed conflict." Nor is notice needed when the intended victim "is already aware of the specific threat."


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by BananaPhone on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:25PM

    by BananaPhone (2488) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:25PM (#227686)

    It would risk exposing their capabilities.

    Meanwhile: Besides Win10, They themselves are the biggest threat out there.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:40PM

    by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:40PM (#227693) Journal

    Their capabilities are already (partly) exposed. They may be looking to normalise them by using them to stop 'the bad guys.'