Slashdot Mirror

Which again does what to change the fact that it's a new agency with a new bureaucracy. Nothing.

The Department of Homeland Security is almost entirely nothing but a regrouping of already existing agencies

As if there wasn't already a great deal of redundancy amongst the various intelligence agencies well before 911.

I think the most delicious irony is often the unintentional irony.

Probably because you're a highly dishonest person with extremely low intelligence. New agency? Check. Used as an excuse for funding? Check.

Run along, troll.

Yes, exactly. That's why I'm sure you were arrested and executed for saying it was. At least you got your comment in before curfew, am I right?

There's 17 intelligence agencies (the ODNI is considered a member now), the majority of which are just the intelligence groups within the various armed forces branches and commonly-known policy departments. Unless you really believe the Coast Guard, DEA and Department of Energy are reading your Facebook posts. Better encrypt all of your documents so the Department of the Treasury can't read them.

The "intelligence community" is nothing more than the intelligence teams of each of the familiar organizations. There might be a whole 3 names there that the average person wouldn't recognize (one of which would be the NRO). The only conspiracy-theory-level ones would be the CIA, FBI, DHS and NSA.

They are sitting in a cleanroom in upstate New York. There is a longer, more detailed article in the New York Times. The satellites may save $250M each or more on various NASA missions, but they still need to be launched and have a program built around them — which may put dark matter research more than a decade ahead of schedule.

For the folks who don't know what the National Reconnaissance Office is, the NRO is the member of the US Intelligence Community responsible for designing, building, launching, and maintaining the United States' intelligence satellites. It does not do intelligence work itself, nor does it direct the use of space assets. Judging from some of the comments on the NYT article, I should also say this: NRO has been around for a half century, and its existence was declassified two decades ago, so this isn't some kind of "new"/shadowy intelligence agency. While its work is classified, its purpose and function is well-understood.

For a look at what kinds of work NRO does, see

Declassified US Spy Satellites Reveal Rare Look at Secret Cold War Space Program

Twenty-five years after their top-secret, Cold War-era missions ended, two clandestine American satellite programs were declassified Saturday (Sept. 17) with the unveiling of three of the United States' most closely guarded assets: the KH-7 GAMBIT, the KH-8 GAMBIT 3 and the KH-9 HEXAGON spy satellites...

Secret No More: Spy Satellite Designer Reveals Life's Work

Phil Pressel had kept a secret for 46 years. A secret that he shared with no one, not even his wife, since he first went to work for the Perkin-Elmer optics company in 1965...

Aside: I know this is difficult to comprehend for some on slashdot, but US intelligence assets in space are almost exclusively used for FOREIGN intelligence. Occasionally capabilities of, e.g., the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) may provide civil support in natural disasters. Our intelligence operations are not transparent, and are kept secret to deny our adversaries knowledge of our techniques, capabilities, sources, and methods. Be happy that we're able to repurpose for science intelligence assets that might otherwise have been destroyed or kept secret beyond all usefulness.

I'll put aside the poetry in your lack of punctuation or capitalization for a second and simply address the poetry in your ignorance of the limited role of federal government, as defined by the Consitituion.

And I'll put aside the condescension and simply address the false conservative dogma.

First, defense is a large contributor to federal spending (24%).

First problem: actual war spending (lets call it what it is) is double the advertized number. Lots of items are left out of the "official" DOD budget yet are obviously defense spending: the VA, the Department of Energy maintaining our nuclear weapon stockpile, DHS, and interest on past wars. The real public price tag on war spending is $1.2 trillion per year.

And this is exactly appropriate.

Second problem: appropriate to spend more than the rest of the world combined? Appropriate more than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union? Appropriate when you have a greater chance of dying from a fall in your own bathtub than by being killed in a terrorist attack? When we are surrounded by two large, friendly nations, the world's two largest oceans, and haven't faced an invasion in 200 years? Looks like Pete Hoekstra isn't the only one with a malformed sense of proportion. We could lop a zero off our defense spending and have more than enough for actual defense spending to you know, defend us.

That being said, defense spending is steamrolled by the combined total spending in Pensions (22%)

What are military pensions? Military spending.

Healthcare (22%)

What is the VA? Military spending.

and Wellfare (%12), none of which are defined roles of the federal government.

Third and greatest problem: General Welfare. It's in the Constitution.

Twice.

And let's go ahead and skip the rationalizations of how General Welfare is limited, shall we? Because it's listed in the same sentence in Article 1, Section 8 as "Common Defense". Which means that if "General Welfare" is strictly limited, and not at all expansive, then so is Common Defense. As Congress only explicitly grants Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy, that of course means that huge chunks of our military and intelligence apparatus are flatly unconstitutional.

Like the Air Force.
Like the military portion of the Department of Energy.
Like most of the FBI.
Like most of DHS.
Like NORAD.
Like the CIA.
Like the NSA.
Like any of the other 15 out of 17 intelligence agencies that are not attached to the Army or Navy.

Isn't it amazing how the same conservatives that complain about how Social Security is unconstitutional because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution don't do the same for the equally unconstitutional Air Force or CIA, etc. But no, all that's "entirely appropriate".

but I would ask you to conced that their is equal or greater corruption in the worlds of green energy, public works, law enforcememt, and even welfare.

Why would anyone do that, when your comparisons aren't on the same planet, much less the same page? When was the last time the 'green energy' industry up and "lost" 6 billion dollars in Iraq?

Are you aware that the Justice Dept is supposed to ensure that Congress and the President do not violate the Constituion?

Speaking of civic ignorance, are you aware that the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch? So the part of the executive branch app

Specifically an Army and a Navy. Since the Air Force is neither, it's unconstitutional until an amendment is passed to allow funding for it. Ditto for the CIA, the NSA, and all the other intelligence agencies not a part of the Army or the Navy.

Two wrongs don't make a right. So we should just ignore the entire 10th Amendment and the principles of a limited federal government?

Nice dodge. Will you rail against NASA, the CIA, the NSA and any of the 18 intelligence agencies not attached to the army or the navy: yes or no? How about large parts of the FBI, spy satellites and NORAD? Or are you a selectively strict constitutionalist, i.e. engaging in arguments of convenience?

PS: The Air Force was actually formed as part of the Army.

PS: it's not any more, so obviously its a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.

I am within a couple miles of a hospital, and a plethora of excellent doctors. An hour or two from major research hospitals.

I'm within two miles of an Air Guard post with fighter jets. Doesn't mean I can use them.

there is no lack of healthcare in the US. There is a lack of funds to pay for healthcare.

Distinction without a difference.

When my daughter is sick, I take her to the doctor, I pay the doctor to give his diagnoses and get a prescription for medication.

And when your insurance company delays & denies treatment for your daughter in the name of higher profits? What then?

Why should the government pay for healthcare?

Why shouldn't the government pay for healthcare? It provides better treatment for far less money.

Where in the US Constitution were we garunteed government sponsored healthcare?

Where in the US Constitution are there provisions for having the Air Force, NORAD, spy satellites, or any intelligence agency not a part of the Army or the Navy?

I am against completely the idea that the Government should be in control of who, how, and when I receive healthcare.

A canard with zero basis in reality. As opposed to a private insurance industry that very much is in control of "who, how, and when" you receive care - while taking the money you pay in in premiums and using it to try and find ways to deny you care while paying their CEO $10 million or more per year.

First: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and then Federalist papers 41-44 are very clear that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it in that section. And that the "general welfare" clause (the first clause of the section) does NOT mean that the feds can do anything they want.

So you've also railed about the unconstitutionality of the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, NSA, and any other intelligence agency not attached to the Army or Navy, spy satellites, the border patrol and large parts of the FBI, right?

Because if Article I, Section 8 is a strict list of enumerated powers, Common Defense is in the same sentence as General Welfare, and is going to be just as limited. So if Social Security and the Department of Education are unconstitutional, so is the USAF and the CIA because Congress only has the authority to fund an army and a navy.

Then FDR came along. FDR didn't give a damn about the Constitution

Horseshit.

FDR threatened to pack the court

If you gave a damn about the Constitution, you might know that it doesn't limit the Supreme Court to 9 justices. There's been as few as six and as many as ten sitting justices, and FDR's plan was not only perfectly Constitutional, it had precedent. Ah, consistency: the enemy of all wingnut arguments.

Otherwise all this New Deal stuff (wage controls, price controls, etc.) would (and did) fail the Constitutionality test.

Wrong again. Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If you're response to that is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I, Section 8 uses the word "provide." And if your response to that is that General Welfare is limited to the specific list in Section 8, then Common Defense is also similarly listed, since it's not only in the same section, but the same sentence as General Welfare.

In other words, if Social Security is unconstitutional because it's not specifically spelled out as a Congressional power, then so is the Air Force, as Congress only has the power to fund an army or a navy. As well as the CIA, the NSA, and any other intelligence agency not attached to the Army or the Navy. Ditto for our spy satellites, border patrol, and large parts of the FBI.

But I've bet you've never heard a wingnut bitch about the unconstitutionality of the New Deal and the Air Force. It's almost like their standards and ethics depend entirely on the situation, like they were partisan hacks or something. Huh, interesting.

So, I would assume the issue is what Democrats like to call the "Living Constitution" meaning that the Constitution doesn't mean what it meant when it was written/ratified, but what 5 Justices think it means today (president be damned). Like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty, words mean only what he says they mean. Conservatives refer to these people as "Activist Judges", and in stead believe that the way to change the Constitution is via Amendments (last one passed during Clinton). In short, the Constitution is a social contract and means what it meant when written/ratified.

You mean liberal activist judges like Antonin Scalia?

The idea that liberal judges are advocates and partisans while judges like Justice Scalia are not is being touted everywhere these days, and it is pure myth. Justice Scalia has been more than willing to ignore the Constitution's plain language, and he has a knack for coming out on the conservative side in cases with an ideological bent. The conservative partisans leading the war on activist judges are just as inconsistent: they like judicial activism just fine when it advances their own agendas.

Justice Scalia's views on federalism - which now generally command a majority on the Supreme Court - are perhaps the clearest example of the problem with the conservative attack on judicial activism. When conservatives complain about activist judges, they talk about gay marriage and defendants' rights. But they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own plain words into a states' rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the disabled out of federal court.

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment h

Believe it or not, everything someone says, just because they are affiliated with NSA, isn't always all propaganda or misinformation.

Hint: no one has found operations that are allegedly in violation of any law by "looking for them" from the outside. They've all been leaked to the media. And the legality of the various operations is anything but clear cut, and will likely be a subject of legal debate for years to come.

NSA doesn't just invent things to do on its own. Intelligence agencies serve one primary purpose, and that is to conduct intelligence activities in response to its customers, the ultimate customer being the President, necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States.

If you choose to politicize everything, then no doubt you ascribe the worst possible intent and overt malice to any activities with which you take issue. Unfortunately, the truth is often far more nuanced -- and elusive -- than the paranoid oversimplification by breathless bloggers would have you believe. Conspiracy theories are much more fun to dabble in, though, aren't they? Facts are, after all, quite boring.

I'm speaking of Federal programs that appear to violate Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. And if you go by the old saw of "promote not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide".

So then you might insist that the "general welfare" part of Article I, Section 8 only applies to the enumerated powers in that section. The problem is that would apply equally to "common defense". So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so are:

• the United States Air Force (since it's not an army nor a navy)
• the CIA
• the NSA
• any other intelligence agency not attached to the army or navy
• NORAD
• our ICBM's
• U.S. Customs
• the Department of Homeland Security

But for some reason I've never heard of a single conservative complain about any of these, with the exception of DHS. It's almost as if they're picking and choosing when to complain about supposed 10th Amendment violations, like Evangelical hacks rant about homosexuality but not adultery from Republicans nor usurious rates from Countrywide. Huh, interesting.

The intelligence community is so large and diverse, that it is literally quite possible that the government itself didn't know how much money was spent on "intelligence".

Not because of incompetence, corruption, waste, or secrecy - though all those are certainly elements to varying degrees - but in reality because of the wide variety of agencies and activities that fall under the guise of "intelligence".

The article itself notes, correctly:

This top line $60 billion figure is 25% above the estimated $48 billion budget for FY 08. It is quite probable that this total figure was not even known by the government until recently. Greater control and oversight of the Intelligence Community budget was a hallmark of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 that created the position of the Director of National Intelligence and gave it the mandate to get an overview of the entire amount spent on intelligence government-wide. To this end, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has recently gathered all parts of the previously fragmented Intelligence Community budget together for the first time as part of its Intelligence Resource Information System (IRIS). In the report from the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence released last Thursday, the committee praised the Office of the Director of Intelligence for creating a "single budget system called the Intelligence Resource Information System." It also recognizes their efforts in helping create what "will be used for further inquiry by the Committee's budget and audit staffs and will be a baseline that allows the Congress and DNI to derive trend data from future reports."

Earlier, lower estimates were most likely only included what fell directly under the Director of Central Intelligence and which would have omitted parts of NSA, NRO. A total Intelligence Community number, with the Intelligence Community as defined by 50 U.S.C. 401a(4), would also now include the various military intelligence services (e.g. Army Intel, Navy Intel, etc.), each with its respective weapon technology intelligence exploitation shop. A total budget would also include a large portion of the budget of the Department of Homeland Security which was previously fragment across multiple government agencies. A $60 billion government-wide Intelligence Community budget is not at all out of line with the post 9/11 organizational reality. It seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget.

When you're dealing with sixteen separate agencies, including elements from the Department of Defense, to say something like "intelligence budget" is almost meaningless. What's pure intelligence? What's national defense? What is a mix? In fact, it often comes down to what some particular task or program is "anointed" by management. Different areas get reorganized and shuffled into different organizational structures. To say nothing of the fact that the addition of DHS to the Intelligence Community was the largest government reorganization in over a half-century, since the creation of the Department of Defense and CIA by the National Security Act of 1947.

Shuffle more, and you can probably make the "intelligence" budget appear lower. But the truth is that "it seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget."

And that should be a good thing.

On a different note, revealing classified or sensitive information by improper handling of technology solutions is a perennial problem, and it still floors me that the vetting and release process doesn't properly capture things like this (though they've gotten MUCH better).

You may want to consider that it is ILLEGAL for any U. S. President, Senator, Congress or Judge to tell the truth.
The same applies to any member of the UK government.

The National Security Act of 1947 which was passed by a Democrat congress.
http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

The Espionage Act of 1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

The UK is even worse with its Official Secrets Act original version 1910.

A list and description of each. Wow, they are SO trying to keep the NRO under wraps! ha

http://intelligence.gov/1-members.shtml

There are 16 intelligence agencies which officially make up the "U.S. Intelligence Community". There are also a large number of other intelligence agencies for things such as law enforcement, etc.

http://www.fas.org/irp/official.html
http://www.intelligence.gov/1-members.shtml

The NSA is, and always has been, part of the Defense Department. It's not a secret. Next time, google before you post.

http://www.intelligence.gov/1-members.shtml

"Three major intelligence agencies in the Department of Defense (DoD) - the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) - absorb the larger part of the national intelligence budget. NSA is responsible for signals intelligence and has collection sites throughout the world."

What walls?

So why does the NSA emplyee the most people of any goverment TLA? FBI,CIA

Because the CIA's dirty work is mostly done by private corporate contractors (Wackenhut, Carlyle, and The Curry Company are the big ones), some entertainment companies (remember MCA, now part ofUniversal Studios but I'm sure they're still active in the comunity) and an assortment of airlines (Pan Am got screwed for helping out), shipping companies (still working on tracking these), and import/export businesses (mostly furniture and lighting, some appliance). There are also some strange connections to Scientology, The Landmark Education Corporation, and The Moonies.

The CIA has been known to work with terrorist organisations to achieve thier desired objectives.

The FBI, CIA, and the DEA, also contract various crime organisations, individual criminals, and run of the mill citizens to do work for them. Often these folk have no idea who it is they are working for.

The NSA, for the most part, uses in house employees to analyze intelligence data, monitor foriegn communications, and ensure the security of comunications for the other departments and the military. In other words, they hire a lot of geeks, have some clue about the internet (they like it), and don't really mind if you encrypt your own data (security for all is more secure than security for some, plus breaking it will be a nice challenge.)

--qtp

Since the 1960's, the intelligence community> has used private corporate contractors, such as Wackenhut, The Curry Company, Scientologythe Music Corporation of America (The Curry Company's parent corporation), and the Mafia to gather information and diseminate disinformation. The changing nature of the information economy, due to the internet and Free Software, threatens the quite lucrative monopoly on information and populace control (hence the recent activities of the RIAA and the MPAA).

It seems to me that the Intelligence Community and the private contractors, who have seen thier profits dwindle since the end of the cold war, seek more to control IT in order to both increase thier ability to monitor the daily lives of private citizens, and to limit the access to information that may inform us about thier covert activities.

The concern of the CIA over technology is not one of information gathering, but one of information, and populace, control.

Do you know if the CIA, FBI and the rest of the spooks are under the defense slice?

How about the newly created homeland defense dept. I think they should all be lumped under the defense portion of the budget.

A different, and possibly more interesting question is this: Why does the builder of the bike chain it to a bike rack *after* you have bought it and not give you the combination to the new lock? The scary thing is that according to the laws passed recently in the United States (by congressmen who likely did not understand the ramifications of what they were voting on), it is not only illegal to unlock your bike, but the original builders of the bike are allowed to lock it down any way they want after you have purchaced it, and it is illegal for you to even discuss the lock with other people or try to unlock it by yourself so you can use the bike. It is generally illegal (not always, but often) to take apart the bike to turn it into a tandem bike. And if you discuss bike locks in general including starting up a website or discussing them via email it's not only illegal, but you might be a political activist, one of the threats to the United States according to the intelligence community:

Political activism on the Internet has generated a wide range of activity, from using e-mail and web sites to organize, to web page defacements and denial-of-service attacks.

Life in these United States scares me of late. People have just about convinced themselves that they don't need to have physical power (the right to bear arms), and society is now casting organized groups in a bad light. First the right to bear arms, now the right to assemble.

And you, a presumably intelligent person, cannot understand that you should have the right to crack into your own private property? Or that there is anything wrong with the fact that you have to do so?

Ah, well...

--
Evan