SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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]
- Politico
- Politico
- Foreign Policy
- Daily Mail
- Jerusalem Post
- Guardian
- Time
- Time
- RT
- Sacramento Bee
- CBS News
- Newsweek (limited access; requires Javascript)
- Breitbart News
- Democracy Now!
- Reason blog
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:35AM
> Saying you have the capability to do both does not imply there are equal amounts of both,
What part of "just as easily" do you fail to understand?
> fool ... spew forth ... garbage ... fairy tales
I can practically see the spittle dripping down your monitor.
I used to be like you, so strident and confident in my own ignorance of human nature. I grew up when I realized that such a simplistic understanding of people invariably failed to describe real life behaviours. Too bad you are too old to grow up yourself. I look forward to yet another post from you proving what you think you are disproving, but I won't respond so hit it out of the park!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:54AM
What part of "just as easily" do you fail to understand?
What part do you fail to understand? That has nothing to do with the quantity of those types of passages.
I can practically see the spittle dripping down your monitor.
That "spittle" remark could just as easily be applied to you. I don't know your intentions, but perhaps you are simply whiteknighting for religion and/or the people who believe in it. Not sure I see the point, if so.
And do you have an actual reason that I should hold any degree of respect for this nonsense (assuming that is what you want me to do), or are you just going to continue mindlessly making comments about how I'm a religious zealot (and other such things) for insulting silly fairy tale books? I lack a belief in these things because there insufficient evidence to support it, and I insult it because it makes claims that are simply insane by our current understanding of the universe. I don't see the issue.
Furthermore, if you have such a high understanding of people, maybe you could refrain from making random assumptions about my own understanding. I can think of numerous reasons that someone might believe these myths, but as I am concerned primarily with truth, none of them are justifiable to me. When someone believes them, they are doing so without sufficient evidence, and therefore being foolish.
I look forward to yet another post from you proving what you think you are disproving
Is this the old "Arguing with me will only prove my point! I win!" tactic? Very clever indeed.
Go forth and enlighten the world with your advanced understanding of human behavior.