Slashdot Mirror


Internet Searches Reveal CIA's Secrets

GabrielF writes "In another blow to the reputation of the agency that just can't seem to get anything right, the Chicago Tribune used web searches and various commercial online databases to uncover a treasure trove of information about the CIA. The Tribune found the identities of over 2600 CIA employees (including an undisclosed number of covert operatives) as well as the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities across the U.S., internal telephone numbers, and information on 17 aircraft."

284 comments

  1. Nothing To See Here by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't worry, damage control is by default in effect as most people won't bother registering with the Chicago Tribune's website to read the story. ;)

    --

    Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

    1. Re:Nothing To See Here by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was about to say the same thing. But try this link its via google.

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi -060311ciamain-story,1,123362.story?coll=chi-news- hed

      This one was interesting too.
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi -0512250424dec25,1,7168647.story

      Nice to see no expenses spared for kidnapping someone.

    2. Re:Nothing To See Here by rbarreira · · Score: 5, Informative

      BugMeNot rules! If you install the firefox extension (I think there's also an IE one), all you have to do is right click on one of the authentication text boxes and press "Login with BugMeNot"...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    3. Re:Nothing To See Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dice. None of the bugmenots work either. I'm suspecting that all non-US IPs are blocked. Welcome to the aparthied internet. Someone care to post the text?

      Question for editors: Why the hell do you insist on posting links to content which ordinary folk can't access?

    4. Re:Nothing To See Here by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 1

      That is very useful information. Thanks!

      --

      Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

    5. Re:Nothing To See Here by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmmm, worked for me (me being in Australia). I used double@mailinator.com with the password 123456.

      --

      Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

    6. Re:Nothing To See Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bug Me Not worked fine for me.

    7. Re:Nothing To See Here by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does it work for pr0n sites?

      Er, I'm just asking for a friend.

      ^_^

    8. Re:Nothing To See Here by krunk4ever · · Score: 4, Informative

      Text:

      TRIBUNE INVESTIGATION
      Internet blows CIA cover
      It's easy to track America's covert operatives. All you need to know is how to navigate the Internet.

      By John Crewdson
      Tribune senior correspondent
      Published March 11, 2006, 12:00 PM CST

      WASHINGTON -- She is 52 years old, married, grew up in the Kansas City suburbs and now lives in Virginia, in a new three-bedroom house.

      Anyone who can qualify for a subscription to one of the online services that compile public information also can learn that she is a CIA employee who, over the past decade, has been assigned to several American embassies in Europe.

      The CIA asked the Tribune not to publish her name because she is a covert operative, and the newspaper agreed. But unbeknown to the CIA, her affiliation and those of hundreds of men and women like her have somehow become a matter of public record, thanks to the Internet.

      When the Tribune searched a commercial online data service, the result was a virtual directory of more than 2,600 CIA employees, 50 internal agency telephone numbers and the locations of some two dozen secret CIA facilities around the United States.

      Only recently has the CIA recognized that in the Internet age its traditional system of providing cover for clandestine employees working overseas is fraught with holes, a discovery that is said to have "horrified" CIA Director Porter Goss.

      "Cover is a complex issue that is more complex in the Internet age," said the CIA's chief spokeswoman, Jennifer Dyck. "There are things that worked previously that no longer work. Director Goss is committed to modernizing the way the agency does cover in order to protect our officers who are doing dangerous work."

      Dyck declined to detail the remedies "since we don't want the bad guys to know what we're fixing."

      Several "front companies" set up to provide cover for CIA operatives and its small fleet of aircraft recently began disappearing from the Internet, following the Tribune's disclosures that some of the planes were used to transport suspected terrorists to countries where they claimed to have been tortured.

      Although finding and repairing the vulnerabilities in the CIA's cover system was not a priority under Goss' predecessor, George Tenet, one senior U.S. official observed that "the Internet age didn't get here in 2004," the year Goss took over at the CIA.

      CIA names not disclosed

      The Tribune is not disclosing the identities of any of the CIA employees uncovered in its database searches, the searching techniques used or other details that might put agency employees or operatives at risk. The CIA apparently was unaware of the extent to which its employees were in the public domain until being provided with a partial list of names by the Tribune.'

      At a minimum, the CIA's seeming inability to keep its own secrets invites questions about whether the Bush administration is doing enough to shield its covert CIA operations from public scrutiny, even as the Justice Department focuses resources on a two-year investigation into whether someone in the administration broke the law by disclosing to reporters the identity of clandestine CIA operative Valerie Plame.

      Not all of the 2,653 employees whose names were produced by the Tribune search are supposed to be working under cover. More than 160 are intelligence analysts, an occupation that is not considered a covert position, and senior CIA executives such as Tenet are included on the list.

      Covert employees discovered

      But an undisclosed number of those on the list--the CIA would not say how many--are covert employees, and some are known to hold jobs that could make them terrorist targets.

      Other potential targets include at least some of the two dozen CIA facilities uncovered by the Tribune search. Most are in northern Virginia, within a few miles of the agency's headquarters. Several are in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Washington state. There is one in Chicago.

      Some are heavil

    9. Re:Nothing To See Here by Asztal_ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, yes...

      Uhm... apparently, anyway >_>

    10. Re:Nothing To See Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works here, non-US IP and all.

    11. Re:Nothing To See Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Nothing To See Here by Elixon · · Score: 1

      Google reveals its own secrets through the search "military automated":
      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=military+aut omated

      What does the "Google Factory" have to do with military? :-)

      --
      Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    13. Re:Nothing To See Here by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      What is a "barnyard epithet" ?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    14. Re:Nothing To See Here by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

      I suspect they may mean bovine, equine or even porcine faecal matter.

    15. Re:Nothing To See Here by Acid-Duck · · Score: 1

      Actually, users can use the bugme not service [bugmenot.com] to get a free login/pass for chicagotribune. The first one off the top of the list worked for me.

    16. Re:Nothing To See Here by gritdog · · Score: 1

      refering to individual(s) as a jackass

    17. Re:Nothing To See Here by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is a "barnyard epithet" ?

      That would be an epithet most commonly heard in a barnyard, like "Moo!" or perhaps "Bah!"

      h4rm0ny, these would be more familiar to you as "m00" and "B44", as said by 1337 c0w5 and 5h33p.

      It is important in understanding the CIA to recognize that they use barnyard epithets like "bah" where other professionals would be more open in their communications and just say "bullsh*t".

    18. Re:Nothing To See Here by Robotech_Master · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps even poultry-based fecal matter.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    19. Re:Nothing To See Here by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      It all tastes the same at McDonalds.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    20. Re:Nothing To See Here by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      It's an euphemism for "Bullshit".

    21. Re:Nothing To See Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meh...
      How good can BugMeNot be if I can't use it to log in to slashdot?

    22. Re:Nothing To See Here by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      h4rm0ny, these would be more familiar to you as "m00" and "B44", as said by 1337 c0w5 and 5h33p.

      Thnx. :)

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    23. Re:Nothing To See Here by Heembo · · Score: 1

      There is this fantastic site that keps a copy of sesveral, ahem, "public" accounts for common websites so you dontt need to register. Anyone recall that site?

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    24. Re:Nothing To See Here by Heembo · · Score: 1
      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    25. Re:Nothing To See Here by MooUK · · Score: 1

      The thing about porn site logins is that they're generally paid, and so people don't want to give them out.

    26. Re:Nothing To See Here by jZnat · · Score: 1

      On the contrary; people get their accounts jacked all the time (apparently), and some smart site admins (like the ones that work for Phil Flash) notice when accounts get compromised and disable those accounts. How else would a.s.passwords work? :P

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    27. Re:Nothing To See Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Parent is inserting words. Moderators please take note.

    28. Re:Nothing To See Here by Psykosys · · Score: 1
      Parent is inserting words. Moderators please take note.
      Well, I thought it was funny.
  2. Disinformation by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But how are they sure it's not disinformation setup by these organizations to throw people off the trail? I don't have much faith in our government, but I don't think the Intelligence Agencies are that stupid.

    1. Re:Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After further thinking, you might realize that it is no better if your statement is true because innocents might get into trouble by being falsely identified as CIA agents. In one way or another, it is stupid.

    2. Re:Disinformation by Gori · · Score: 4, Informative
      Indeed, check this story out : http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/gen.strategi c.influence/ They explicitly say :
      Although "information deception" -- deliberately spreading false or misleading information -- is a part of information warfare policy and doctrine, the Pentagon has no specific plans to undertake deceptive operations using the international news media, the official said.
      riight....
      --
      Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
    3. Re:Disinformation by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The Italian police discovered they are either stupid or arrogant.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Disinformation by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      I can't make up my mind. If the recent years has shown me anything - yes, people in large groups are that stupid. But they shouldn't be.

      Since I can't make up my mind, I'm glad that, ultimately, I simply don't care either way. Funny what disillusionment/disaffection does to a person.

    5. Re:Disinformation by Threni · · Score: 2

      > I don't think the Intelligence Agencies are that stupid.

      Why not?

      www.cryptome.org is full of this sort of thing. They've missed a lot of stuff abroad that really they should have known about, given their immense budget and powers.

    6. Re:Disinformation by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 1

      Why not? Because I want to have the warm blanket of safety around me, even if the blanket isn't real. I want to believe that my tax dollars aren't completely wasted on incompetence, so if I believe that the CIA and FBI are actually somehow protecting us, then that's something....right?

    7. Re:Disinformation by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are. Where do you think they get their people? I have at least four friends who "interned" in the CIA, FBI, and/or NSA or related DC-based fed bodies while or immediately after working on their B.S or B.A. in political science, criminology, or similar fields, going on to become defense analysts or operatives. And they talk openly about their careers. I've been to their weddings where half of the smalltalk was federal shoptalk.

      These aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the world either, mind you. My filmmaker and physicist friends certainly have them beat for smarts. These are average kids with good grades who went to reasonably big schools like GWU or Penn after high school and went into a federal internship as a B.S./B.A. level scholar at 20 or 21 years old.

      They're just not tight packages of great judgment and discretion at that age and level of education, regardless of what the government would tell us and/or like to think. One of them in particular, who works at the Pentagon now, is about the biggest ditz/boof I've ever met, but is a great climber and perky enough to get promotions just on her smile.

      The point: these agencies have to draw their people from the same population that shells out $10.00 to see Adam Sandler flicks and that things "Digital Rights Management" is there to protect their rights.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    8. Re:Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nice try but how do we know that you are not yourself a CIA agent trying to minimize the leaks by pretending that they were done on purpose with false data.

      It is well known that since its inception /. has been infriltrated by suspicious people as well as CIA agents posing as no less suspicious people. Proof: English literacy level in most postings is rather low.

      It is also well known, at least to the CIA, that there are distinct patterns in the frequency of RTFA and IANAL appearing in all the postings. The CIA is not stupid.

      You seem to imply that publishing an article in Chicago Tribune was purposely targetting the US enemies using /. as a vehicle for their nefarious activities...

      As a matter of fact, after second thought, maybe you are one of these people trying to pose as a regular guy who basically says "I don't believe that the CIA is so stupid" so that the CIA is not going to implement countermeasures to minimize its last snafu.

    9. Re:Disinformation by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Intelligence Agencies are that stupid.

      This is the same intelligence agency which couldn't find a known terrorist who was listed in the Los Angeles telephone book, had a driver's license, social security card, and public record entries.

      Conspiracy theory website copy of Newsweek article here

    10. Re:Disinformation by Corbu+Mulak · · Score: 1

      "...perky enough to get promotions just on her smile"

      I think that has to do less with her smile, and more with her lips.

    11. Re:Disinformation by typo83 · · Score: 1

      The article is, in fact, NOT disinformation, because the article is IN FACT TRUE. The point is, the CIA can no longer count on front companies to conceal covert agents, or operations. So the question then becomes, would the operations of DP World container terminals outside the US have been a good place to infiltrate CIA agents searching for terrorists attempting to smuggle weapons into the US?

    12. Re:Disinformation by Omaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > One of them in particular, who works at the Pentagon now, is about
      > the biggest ditz/boof I've ever met, but is a great climber and
      > perky enough to get promotions just on her smile.

      I think I know the one you're talking about and it's not just her. Have you seen the shared network drives at military contractors? TS clearance my ass. The amount of potentially damaging information which I could access just by casually browsing the shared drives was disturbing. The only requisite for a TS clearance is that a person was sheltered enough to always have a fallback in case everything else went to crap. Some of the people walking around were truly tough old-school military types who had seen the rough side of hopelessness but even they still had mother military to take care of them.

      Security clearances have less to do with security and more to do with social selection. Since I'm not really interested in endearing myself to someone without reciprocation I was easily deselected. It's the ultra-secretive people who don't fit in easily because they're not apt to play suckup to the fellow above them. The people who fit in easily are more likely to flap their mouths about things that they shouldn't be. FItting in, however, is more a requisite for a security clearance than actual security.

      Truly a back-asswards system.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    13. Re:Disinformation by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Neither.

      In fact - unqualified.

      They did not perform any attempt to cover their mobile usage and had no clue whatsoever about the level of precision mobile location records from GSM can yield in a high density urban environment. Italians love to talk so the GSM coverage in their cities is one of the densest in Europe.

      All the judge had to do is subpoena the Italian GSM operators.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    14. Re:Disinformation by typo83 · · Score: 1

      Firstly: CNN is not a creditable source.
      Secondly: It makes no sense to spread "dis-information" when the TRUTH will work just fine.
      Thirdly: "dis-information", We are going to launch the attack againts these targets next week thursday, at 9am local time, using airborne assault teams.
      So, if true, why would you tell anyone? If you are telling someone, what part is false? Date, Time, Place, Method?

    15. Re:Disinformation by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative
      Pentagon has no specific plans to undertake deceptive operations using the international news media
      Part of the problem with spreading disinformation into the "international" news media... is that it'll end up right back in the U.S. of A.

      The main reason thats a problem, is that there are laws specifically preventing the Federal Government (and everyone under them) from pushing propoganda onto the American people.

      They tried to do it (to the Iraqi people) after invading Iraq, but it quickly got out of hand. There wasn't a lot of news coverage of the situation (IIRC), but you could probably dig up some news articles if you tried.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    16. Re:Disinformation by typo83 · · Score: 1

      Fitting in???
      Well I don't know about you, but I flunked the psychology profile rather badly, I think.
      Didn't get the job.
      Got the security clearance though. It was a long time ago, ok?

    17. Re:Disinformation by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But how are they sure it's not disinformation setup by these organizations to throw people off the trail? I don't have much faith in our government, but I don't think the Intelligence Agencies are that stupid.

      Hmm, let's see here...

      - WMDs in Iraq.

      - 9/11.

      - Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, still alive and at large.

      - failure to anticipate India's test of nuclear weapons.

      - failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

      Yes. Yes, they are just that stupid.

      The organization probably employs some really bright people. The problem is that when the culture of a government organization goes bad, it goes really bad, because it's not accountable; they still get funded whether they succeed or fail. The only thing you are accountable for is breaking policy, so bureacracy and following the rules to the letter(never mind that the rules often make no sense and are counterproductive) become more important than actually doing anything. The best people- the ones who actually care about getting something done instead of sitting on their asses eight hours a day so they can one day collect a pension- get frustrated and leave. At any rate, that's my experience dealing with a messed-up government institution. Keep in mind, however, that the private sector isn't necessarily the solution. As Enron so brilliantly displays, corruption, arrogance and incompetence can flourish in private industry as well.

    18. Re:Disinformation by Threni · · Score: 1

      The Unabomber was only caught because his own brother grassed him up to the feds. I guess that's why Bush et al are being so nice to Bin Ladens family...

    19. Re:Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

      Why would they need to anticipate what the Iraqi ambassador told the U.S. ambassador? (The U.S. ambassador responded with "We have no interest in local border disputes," when asked if the U.S. had any political or military objection to Iraq invading Kuwait.)

      Seriously, you should try reading something about the subject before spouting off.

    20. Re:Disinformation by MMaestro · · Score: 2, Informative
      - WMDs in Iraq.

      Actually that was a political decision. Read up on the subject, the general consensus is that CIA simply acted on outdated info (we know they HAD WMDs in the past) and the Bush administration took that as face value.

      - 9/11.

      Again, political. Domestic and military security analysts were predicting another attack on the WTC for YEARS after the '93 truck bombing attempt. The U.S. use domestic airliners in simulations for war against Russia for DECADES during the Cold War. It was not a "WTF?! Who woulda thunk of dat?!!?!" scenario.

      - failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

      Simply given Iraq's weakened military strength (post Iraq-Iran War) and the friendly relations between the U.S. and Kuwait at the time (gotta kiss ass after the oil embargo of '73-'74), you really have to question whether or not diplomacy would have mattered.

      I'm not saying they're perfect (they seem to be complete retards when it comes to Iran), but they get a worse rap than they deserve in some cases.

    21. Re:Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I suspect that the author the Tribune article is actually planting disinformation in order to assist Libby in his trial.

      The article titled "Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly veiled" was by "John Crewdson, Tribune senior correspondent" and was about how easy it was for the Tribune to use Internet databases open to the public to identify many CIA operatives. And he makes the case that Valerie Plame could be easily outed, and so, well gosh, Libby and who knows who else was not doing anything that could not be done legally.

      Smells like a plant by the Cheney side, with cooperation of Tribune management/editorial. When I look up John Crewdson, I find he lives not far from the CIA HQ.

      "JOHN CREWDSON is a senior writer for the Chicago Tribune based in Washington, D.C., who holds the 1981 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. His 50,000-word Tribune account of the discovery of HIV was accorded the 1989 George Polk Award. He and his family currently reside in Bethesda, Maryland."

      When I look up what he writes about, his stories are exclusively all about the CIA, or about terrorism, or what mistakes the CIA made in Italy that it should not repeat, etc. Nothing else. He's very specialized. For him to write an article like this about how the Internet exposes CIA personnel seems a bit odd. He's too closely connected. So if you hear this news story being cited by the Libby defense, dollars to donuts it was a setup from the beginning.

      Furthermore, in the past he wrote a book review in the NYTimes questioning whether Karen Silkwood was killed or died accidently. In 1982 Crewsdon worked for the NYTimes and did a review of a book on Karen Silkwood, and says:

      "Despite Mr. Kohn's effort to demonstrate his even handedness, his book still dismisses, too readily for my taste anyway, the possibility that the Silkwood crash was no more than an accident."

      Karen's murder was hardly an accident though it was made to look like one. Crewdson could well be someone in the pocket of corporate and government interests. His job as a plant, to defend them in the media, but by subtle means. His new article has the flavor of subtle disinfo.

    22. Re:Disinformation by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      The White House is to blame for distorting and abusing the available intelligence: they made it clear what kind of evidence they wanted to hear, and they ignored anything that didn't fit their agenda.

      The CIA's problem is that the available intelligence was so poor in the first place, so nobody really had any clue what was going on in Iraq

    23. Re:Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

      You're wrong about that one, at least. The CIA new about the invasion well in advance. In fact, amabassador April Glaspie held a meeting with Saddam to discuss it. It was this meeting that led Saddam to believe the US would not intervene if he invaded Kuwait. See April Glaspie.

    24. Re:Disinformation by tenchiken · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You say that it was a political decision but then you admit:

      Actually that was a political decision. Read up on the subject, the general consensus is that CIA simply acted on outdated info (we know they HAD WMDs in the past) and the Bush administration took that as face value.

      (which by the way, doesn't jive with recent reporting. Saddam bluffed to everyone (including, indirectly us) that he had WMD until 2002 when he finally admited to his officers that the didn't have anything they could use against the US. By that time the die was well cast by 9/11. As recently as 1999, he openly threated to use chemical weapons against the Shiites, and his forces were still taking pot shots at Coalition air forces protecting the Kurds.

      The information was outdated and simply wrong, but we didn't have anyone in the core of Saddam's circle who could have told us that. That's the problem with dictatorships, it's much easier to hold secrets, much easier to bluff and threaten. There was a great article yesterday in the NYT about how Saddam's efforts to make sure that he didn't have any stockpiles by revisiting his old weapons labs sites, actually was interpreted by the CIA as Saddam going back to his stockpiles and destroying weapons (which is what would have happened if they actualyl found anything). Saddam does this to make sure there is not any real WMD, we see him returing to his weapons sites, put one and one together and rightly note that he never disclosed these sites in the first place.

      I am not trying to whitewash the CIA here, but they clearly were reporting to the president that Mr. Hussein was up to his old tricks. Bush was getting attacked at the time by democrats who believed that he should have magically detected the 9/11 plot. Now his CIA agency is telling him that Hussein is stockpiling weapons, sponsering terrorists (including a assasination attempt on his own father). What do you think he is going to do under thoose circumstances?

    25. Re:Disinformation by birge · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, as Enron displays, corruption DOESN'T flourish in private industry. I can't believe you missed the irony in your own statement. The CIA has been a disaster far longer than it took Enron to collapse. The private sector is not perfect, but it's reliance on VOLUNTARY financial support (at least to the extent the government keeps the hell out) means that it's connected with reality in a way the government never can be. In the long run, the private sector is self-correcting. Pointing out the (former) existence of Enron actually proves that point. Enron was an example of that mechanism in action. The world will never be perfect; all we can hopefor is a system where the right underlying forces are in place.

      People seem to expect a world in which nothing bad ever happens, and when something does, rush to form government solutions that are worse than the problem. The best we can hope for is a world where bad stuff dies as quickly as possible. More government is almost never the right answer. (I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting, so don't take any of this personally.)

    26. Re:Disinformation by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight.... *You* FAILED to pass the clearance process and yet claim to have been able to access damaging classified information browsing shares at a Govt. contractor? You realize that such networks generally aren't attached to the outside world or accessible to folks who don't carry the clearances right?

      Umm, you are either truly stupid or full of crap. Having admitted to failing the process somehow I'd peg you as someone with an axe to grind. A compromised point of view by your own admission at the very least....

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    27. Re:Disinformation by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      To your comment I'd add that a plot to fly an airliner into the CIA HQ a few years prior to 9/11 was broken up and reported on a few years ago. I've not tried Googling for it but it was indeed reported a few years before 9/11 and I remembered it pretty clearly when 9/11 occured. Then there was that whole attempt to blow up the towers with a bomb in the garage, it was obviously targeted and steps to prevent a repeat were taken. Somehow I don't think an airplane flying into the building could've been stopped by the security guys in the building though....

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    28. Re:Disinformation by BLKMGK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Available intelligence wasn't available.... Hey, how did the budget for the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies look leading up to 9/11? Cuts? There were cuts? No way! How could you make cuts and then wonder why there wasn't intelligence? The CIA is supposed to be the ones who put spies - that's people - on the ground in places where you can't use a satellite or some other way to get information. How do you cut that budget and then bitch about lack of info? That's like cuttig the budget for Border Security and then screaming about illegal immigration. Oh wait, we're doing that too!

      I wonder, 9/11 happened - how many times before and since have really serious attempts like that been attempted? Honestly the worst part of 9/11 is that we're all kissing away our rights in the name of "security" and turning our society slowly but surely into exactly that which we're supposed to be fighting against. What are the chances we'll turn back the clock and get those rights back without pitchforks and torches? :-(

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    29. Re:Disinformation by russellh · · Score: 1

      Are you joking? WTF does this have to do with the CIA? The private sector is connected to the reality of making money, but you surely can't be suggesting that the CIA could be replaced by competition among private sector entities in a market.

      The purpose of public institutions is that they are accountable to the public. Private institutions are not. Insofar as the public good is at stake, the institutions that deal with it ought to be public. the more you privatize, the more you take away public accountability, and the more corporations become our defacto government. Privatization of government is the opposite in every way of government by the people, for the people. It is fascism.

      The private sector is not perfect, but it's reliance on VOLUNTARY financial support (at least to the extent the government keeps the hell out) means that it's connected with reality in a way the government never can be. In the long run, the private sector is self-correcting.

      Our capitalist system works because the law protects the weak from the strong. Take it away and we will quickly revert to feudalism. Corrections happen within and are due to our system of laws and regulations. Not to mention our culture of laws and legal remediation (versus honor killings, for instance, private armies and warlords, the mob, etc.)

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    30. Re:Disinformation by toddhunter · · Score: 1

      Your well thought out arguments and opinions have no place on slashdot. Please find somewhere else to be sensible and informative.

    31. Re:Disinformation by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Probably a better term, they also used embassy issued mobiles and government issued credit cards to rent the kidnap van and pay for the luxury hideout. The CIA are not the only clumsy spies, the French spooks who sunk the Rainbow Warrior were just as inept. Makes you wonder what deeds have been done in our name and why we tolerate state sponsered terror in the first place.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:Disinformation by birge · · Score: 1
      What it has to do with the CIA is that perhaps it's foolish to have such an unbelievable extensive "intelligence" complex sucking tax money like there's no tomorrow if, as the OP pointed out, government agencies are so prone to incompetence. Nowhere did I suggest that intelligence could be done privately, though now that you bring it up, it may not be a bad idea. Before you go "WTF"ing your ass off, consider the fact that the private sector already handles very sensitive intelligence and military assets as it is. Remember, the military and CIA don't actualy make a damn thing. Everything they use is made by private companies. Lockheed Martin, for one, has a hell of a lot more "government secrets" than the actual government has.

      So, why not contract out even more of the CIA's work to Lockheed Martin? Oh, I know, because Lockheed Martin can't kill people, and all the other stuff we get from our tremendously publically accountable government. Your ideas sound wonderful, but I'm afraid they fly in the face of all human experience. The only way to keep government in check is to keep it small.

      The bigger our government gets, the more it worries me, and it should worry you, too. People always seem shocked when government grows for "good" reasons--the ones you seem to support--and then invariably abuses its newfound power in short order, all assurances of "public oversight" notwithstanding. We're just a mere spot on the historical record with our little experiment, and only 230 years into it do-good statists are already fucking it up, just as most of the founding fathers predicted we probably would.

      Anyway, I'm not sure why you're so freaked out by privitizing things. You're a fool if you think government is any easier to keep in line than a company, or any more transparent. And I'm not suggesting we privitize everything. I'm more saying we should eliminate a lot of what we expect the government to do, because it does such a shoddy job at it. The government seems a lot better at getting the world to want to destoy us than it is at preventing them from doing it.

      (I do totally agree with you about the importance of law and the culture of law. But I think we can both agree that most of the what the government does today has nothing to do with the rule of law protecting property, life and liberty.)

    33. Re:Disinformation by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      They still shouldn't be able to prove that they really work "spies". If they can, somebody's not doing their job!!! Unfortunately, the spy business isn't really about "hiding" as much as "deception" and "misdirection". It's more about getting to the information before the other guy does rather than hiding it all together.. after all, he'll know you're the spy when you shoot him in the back.

    34. Re:Disinformation by goldspider · · Score: 1

      "Put Bush and Blair on trial for war crimes NOW."

      Care to elaborate? Or are you in the "impeach Bush because I don't like him" crowd?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    35. Re:Disinformation by ph1ll · · Score: 1
      "Bush was getting attacked at the time by democrats who believed that he should have magically detected the 9/11 plot."

      Magically detected the 9/11 plot? MAGICALLY?

      What was so magical about the 6 August 2001 President Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"?

      There's no guarantee that listening to these advisors would have stopped 9/11. But if 'Mr Bush was on a month-long "working holiday" at his Texas ranch' at the time, it's not unfair to say that perhaps he wasn't taking the threats seriously.

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    36. Re:Disinformation by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      What was so magical about the 6 August 2001 President Daily Brief

      If you've read it, you know that it wasn't in any way helpful towards any actual action that would have allowed us to predict the use of tiny pocket box cutters to, essentially, kill thousands of people. Never mind when, or specifically, in any way, which people traveling from what Euro countries through which US cities with which operational details in mind. And of course, minus things like recent changes (read: PATRIOT act), domestic law enforcement and foreign intel were kept very much at arm's length from one another. That PDB doesn't do squat to change the circumstances.

      But if 'Mr Bush was on a month-long "working holiday" at his Texas ranch' at the time, it's not unfair to say that perhaps he wasn't taking the threats seriously.

      Of course it's unfair. Presidents away from the White House are completely surrounded by briefers, communications gear, daily (and even hourly) teleconferences, etc. Even Bill Clinton, hanging out on Martha's Vineyard with Hollywood types, was just as plugged into his C-in-C duties as when he was in DC. The president is not an intelligence analyst. He would get nothing else done if he had to gather and interpret intel and decide when to act on each and every open-ended threat possibility. The C-in-C's role is to delegate that stuff, and to be briefed on what's being done. Trying to micro-manage counterterrorism from the Oval Office (whether the real one or the mobile one that follows every president when they're away from DC) is crazy, and I'd consider any president that did it to be really misunderstanding his job and under-using his chain of command.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    37. Re:Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh...so the plans to use the media to spread dis-information are general then...

    38. Re:Disinformation by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Right, so if I tell you I am going to hurt you at some point, you are going to know that I mean to take a small cesna plane and fly it into your barn silo? Give me a break.

      As for your other cheap shot, have you ever worked from home?

    39. Re:Disinformation by Omaze · · Score: 1

      Who said I failed? I gave my assessment of the process. The process is for crap. People with TS clearances seem to have this need to polish their own egos and, in doing so, they give out more information than they should. People with secret clearances can be just as vindictive and petty as any 16-year old working in McDonald's. It's completely ignorant to think that the screening process has anything to do with security. I worked shoulder to shoulder with people who, with TS clearances, would happily part with several thousand dollars if their cat had a hangnail. What would they be willing to give up should their children get kidnapped or their family threatened? The only thing that the cleared people had in common was that they always had some financial support system backing them. Beyond that their concept of security was about as genuine as someone living in Disneyland talking about their heroics fighting off the Pirates of the Caribbean. All talk but it was obvious that, should they ever have to choose between the good life and any sort of real hardship, they'd happily sell whatever they know to preserve their positions.

      I have no axe to grind. I'm telling you what I could find on shared drives available to anyone in the company--even the Manpower temp lab techs who don't need clearances.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    40. Re:Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the CIA has to take orders from the Senate and explain their mistakes. If Lockheed Martin was the CIA, they wouldn't need to be accountable to anyone.

      Accountability- so simple, only a Libertarian could get confused.

    41. Re:Disinformation by birge · · Score: 1
      Not sure what it says about you, then, that you appear confused by the ideas of a libertarian. Lockheed Martin would answer to whomever hired them. In the case of my example, that would be the government and so the same Senate committe would have oversight. The new difference is that if LM fucks up, they get replaced. And if they are inefficient, they lose profit. And they can fire people. Etc.

      Anyway, in the world outside your ass, where most of us have our heads, government oversight never seems to work as well as your theory suggests. Which is why libertarians want to solve the problem by eliminating as many government responsibilities as possible. We think, in the end, you'll get more out of government where it really counts, and a lot of the problems big government is supposed to solve but doesn't (i.e. poverty) will actually be reduced by the government not trying to solve them. For example, imagine how many elderly wouldn't need to suckle from the government teat during retirement if they'd been able to keep some of the 50% of their incomes the government (at all levels) took during their working years. It's counter intuitive (and it may even be wrong) but the world often works that way. So you can continue to be an asshole and ridicule the notion with strawman arguments and hit me with ad hominum insults, or you can give it some thought and respond with something intelligent. Still waiting for the latter.

  3. Red Herrings by TFGeditor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do we know that all that info is not just a bunch of red herrings to throw us off the track and keep us distracted?

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    1. Re:Red Herrings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      How do you know it's not a clever double-bluff and really it's true information disguized as a clumsy disinformation campaign?

      Just a minute - there's a knocking on the door I have to answer...

  4. Any mirrors welcome... by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... cause I don't want something like the Chicago Tribune knowing who the heck I am. I already did the NYT thingy... and spam came out the wing-wang! I'll do the spam-email thingy with the CT if I have to, but a mirror would be so much less hassle. On-line links to newspapers are getting like porn sites: make sure you have a ditch account somewhere, your firewall up, and your virus scans active. News stories are the porn of the 21st century... except that they screw you. Open up wide, peeps, and drink it down.

    --
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
  5. Boy, are they in trouble.... by David+Hume · · Score: 5, Funny
    the Chicago Tribune used web searches and various commercial online databases to uncover a treasure trove of information about the CIA.
    And by doing so violated both the Patriot Act and the DMCA.
    1. Re:Boy, are they in trouble.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to Gitmo. Go directly to Gitmo. Do not pass through the courts. Do not collect your rights.

    2. Re:Boy, are they in trouble.... by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      No they didn't. If somebody did violate Patriot Act it's the guy who sold the info to the commercial database and the databases for buying the info.

    3. Re:Boy, are they in trouble.... by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "Patriot Act" is actually the "PATRIOT Act". Because if you consider what it does to American civil liberties, it really deserves to be an acronym and not the figurative word "patriot".

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:Boy, are they in trouble.... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1
      I always thought the Patriot Act was named after the Patriot Missile which won fame for its performance in the first Gulf War for never hitting its intended target.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    5. Re:Boy, are they in trouble.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and is this different from "Total Information Awareness"?

  6. "the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities" by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You would prefer that they were really a completely secret police?

    KFG

  7. Covert Agency? by thedletterman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What the hell happened to the spy agency? CIA Agents now chat away on unsecure cell phones, check into foreign hotels using GSAs (US gov't issued credit cards), and leak every other intelligence briefing to the press. They might as well start a group on MySpace and issue bumper stickers and T shirts. The fact that Google can catch sensitive information means these guys have failed the test of keeping our government's secrets secure.

    --
    Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Covert Agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, that is freakin awesome... I second the myspace thing.
      Mod parent up

    2. Re:Covert Agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      then again, ever think that maybe these are the decoy agents? ones that governments and others will watch instead of the real agents going in?

    3. Re:Covert Agency? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0, Troll


      If they weren't 'decoys' before, they sure as hell are now...

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    4. Re:Covert Agency? by nx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think they ever were the super heroes they're portrayed as in the movies. As far as I can tell using public information, they've had some successful missions, and some very unsuccessful. And they've probably always been chatting away on unsecured telephones and using government issued credit cards. The difference is the global informational infrastructure, which is available to the general public. My guess is that a decent 'social engineer' probably could've gotten this information even before the Internet.

      --
      L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
    5. Re:Covert Agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of when Homer was wearing a "Witness Protection Program" t-shirt, when he was hiding from sideshow bob.

    6. Re:Covert Agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Google can catch sensitive information means these guys have failed the test of keeping our government's secrets secure.
       
      Sounds like its about time to shut this Google thing down, eh?

    7. Re:Covert Agency? by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      They might as well start a group on MySpace and issue bumper stickers and T shirts.

      Something like this T-Shirt and this bumper sticker?

    8. Re:Covert Agency? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      That reminds me of those "Undercover Cop" novelty hats and shirts.

      I have an FBI hat that I sometimes wear at work on Fridays.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    9. Re:Covert Agency? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      No, more like the "I'm the fed" t-shirts you can get at DEFCON (provided you *are* the fed).

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    10. Re:Covert Agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check the community page on Vault.com
      http://www.vault.com/community/mb/mb_home.jsp
      for the organization...

    11. Re:Covert Agency? by hachete · · Score: 1

      They should at least read "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" or "Funeral In Berlin" before they get out of bed mornings. I could run an intelligence better than the CIA.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    12. Re:Covert Agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you can rent Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy on Netflix.

    13. Re:Covert Agency? by stefanb · · Score: 1
      They might as well start a group on MySpace and issue bumper stickers and T shirts.

      Germany's BND might not be a match for the intelligence capabilities, but they're ahead in the merchandizing section :-)

    14. Re:Covert Agency? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      What the hell happened to the spy agency? CIA Agents now chat away on unsecure cell phones, check into foreign hotels using GSAs (US gov't issued credit cards), and leak every other intelligence briefing to the press.

      I think you're confusing run-of-the-mill analysts, staffers, and appointees with truly under-cover operatives. Those people work completely off the books, are funded with laundered, trail-less transactions that defy this sort of snooping, and are frequently risking their personal lives to operate in the way that they do. Far from the portrait that's painted in this article, those folks are quite submerged. They don't know each other, and their handling is very compartmentalized from much farther up the agency food chain.

      The parade of contractors, interns, food service workers, well-known analysts (a la Plame), etc., is a completely different layer than the Extra Spooky types.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re:Covert Agency? by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Or the CIA T-shirt Johnny Depp wore in Once Upon a Time in Mexico?

  8. I'm the gingerbread man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they'll never catch me! I've left posts all over this site and heaps of others. My proliferation is so wide that there's _too_ much out there for them to find. PSNR, meet my friend, ZERO.

  9. The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quote from the Slashdot story: "In another blow to the reputation of the agency that just can't seem to get anything right..."

    That depends on the definition of "right". CIA employees get more money and promotions if there is more trouble in the world. So, they make trouble. For example, the CIA trained Osama bin Laden and other Arabs in the techniques of terrorism.

    U.S. citizens should not expect that ANY U.S. government secret agency actually does what it is supposed to do. The secrecy allows the purpose to drift off course, until it is the employees who determine what happens, not the policy makers.

    Government leaders, such as U.S. congressmen and women, are allowed to know only the public relations information about the secret agencies, not what is really happening. In the name of secrecy and covert operation, the secret U.S. government agencies are allowed to lie. They place lies in newspapers and magazines the same way other P.R. is placed.

    A government that sometimes acts in secret cannot be said to be a democratic government, because the citizens cannot supervise what they don't know.

    --
    Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

    1. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Grumpy+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FOXNews.com has published an article which may be of interest: Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth .

    2. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm not much of a fan of the CIA, but the US government was not exactly secret about its support for the Afghan mujahideen. Reagan publicly praised the mujahideen, comparing them to the American revolutionaries over 200 years prior. There are much better examples of CIA secrecy, like the overthrow of Allende in 1973.

    3. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Troed · · Score: 2, Informative

      FOXNews.com

      So, the official US propaganda machine says CIA hasn't trained bin Laden.

      So. Nice.

      What do they have to say about the financing for 9/11 (part of it - Mohammed Atta) coming from CIA through Pakistan (ISI)?

      (And what about the CIA meetings with bin Laden at a Dubai hospital a few months before 9/11 - when bin Laden allegedly was one of the world's most wanted men?)

      Maybe there's enough there for a Fox News reality show even?

    4. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by N8F8 · · Score: 0, Troll
      A government that sometimes acts in secret cannot be said to be a democratic government, because the citizens cannot supervise what they don't know.
      Actually, the US is a Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition. And actually those "secret" things are actually done with oversight by the people's elected representatives. But I'm sure you're too stupid or brainwashed to bother learning that.
      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    5. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if Congress is in the dark about the CIA, are you seriously implying that they would manage it better than the executive branch?

    6. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by tenchiken · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The above link is just plain wrong. If you bother to do your homework, and look at the recent book "The osama Bin Ladin I know" which was hardly written by a friend of the Bush administration the leading authority on Bin Ladin, Peter Bergan, completly debunks this particular liberal wet dream.

      Not that they guy we ended up supporting (because the pakastani's supported him) was that much better, but please remember that Bin Ladin was first and foremost a financer during the Afgani conflict... He was there because he had jihad money in the first place.

      You may now return to your regularly scheduled group-think

    7. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by webweave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hello, WIRETAPPING!!!! done illegally and admitted now oversight requirements are being removed. Transparent as mud.

    8. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Omaze · · Score: 1

      There's not much left of the Constitutional basis of anything that the Feds do these days. Political pressure has led the Supreme Court to grant its blessing to the near complete nullification of the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the near complete expansion of the definition of interstate commerce and the duties of the president.

      We might as well be living in a nation run by a cartel that only keeps a thin flimsy veil of freedom for the sake of PR and morale.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    9. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by N8F8 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      First Point: You really don't know what you are talking about (from a technical or legal perspective).

      Second Point: You found out about the program through leaks from the congressional comittee (Democrats) being briefed on the program). They counted on the public being too stupid to understand the hairsplitting done to call the program something differennt than wiretapping and thus making FISA approval unneccesary.

      Third Point: You really should be aware that this is the typical second term ploy to turn the sitting president into a lame duck so congress can garner even more power. They usually accomplish this by apealing to the 30% of the population that really hate their own country and/or have no clue how the real world works.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    10. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You just think it's wrong because the man trained you to only believe their "reputable" puppet news sources, man!! Futurepower.org is the future! Of power! Not only that, it's the power of the future! (100% green, of course.)

    11. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      No you're right the CIA never directly funded the Afghan Arabs. However the US government did give billions of dollars to Saddam. And I'm sure you're saying "What does Saddam have to do with this?" and yeah I ask myself that a lot.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    12. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      The money the US provided Iraq was a pittence compared to what France and the rest of Europe was doing. And frankly, if you can possibly move yourself to the context of the 1980s, where Jihadism just took out Iran and replaced it with a group of dictators sponsering American attacks, which would you pick? The Secularist who came to power under shady terms, but has not yet done anything along the lines of the Kurdish massaceres or the Ayatollahs?

      Or would you do what we did and hoped that Iran and Iraq would wipe each other off the map?

      As far as how this links, both 9/11 and WMD in Iraq (1/3 the arguments for the war) were both serious intellegence errors that were 30 years in the making. In 9/11 we assumed that our Signals Intellegence could trap terrorists before they could strike, and that terrorists would only use planes as hostage situations. However, the "wall" that was put in place between intellegece and judical means (which is not a simple issue) as well as the overall prosecution of what we now refer to as the War on Terror kept us from reaching a minimum amount of information needed to stop the attacks.

      Iraq occured because we completly believed singals intellegence (as well as Mr. Hussein gassing his own people, threating to gas the Shiites in 1999, ignoring the no-fly zone, and the videotape) as well as bad human resources (in this case, people who were determined to make Hussein more of a threat then he actually was -- Shiite's in exile who played up the WMD angle) which led everyone (not just our intellegence sources) down the wrong path.

      And at the end of the day that's a problem. It's the same problem that Germany faced in 1944 where their Signals Intellegence reported that there was another whole army in Britian that was going to land at Calais, plus a double agent who kept them from responding appropriatly to the normandy invasion.

      Intellegence inevitably has it's week points. At some point you simply have to roll the dice. After 9/11 the spectre of a another suprise attack but this one using weapons from Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or North Korea could no longer be avoided. Remember that two of thoose countries (Iraq and Iran) had sponsered terrorist activites against American interests (in Iraq's case, including a attempted assasiation of a former American president), Pakistan had whitewashed the Taleban and North Korea was building new Scuds for Iraq.

      Something had to be done. If you had human intellegence capabilities you would have killed Saddam on the first night. Instead of the Saddam Feyadeen survived the war, and formed the nucleus of the Insurgancy.

    13. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      He liked the USA so much back then he changed his name to USAma - although it's translated to Osama in the press in the reports over the last few years.

      His attitude changed due to US involvement in Saudi politics and support of Isreal - it just shows it's a bad idea to have an obsessed homocidal maniac who owes allegience to a different country and set of ideas on the payroll.

    14. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Frankly, that's BS. Go pick up a real book on Bin Ladin (I recommend "The Osama Bin Ladin I Know" by Peter Bergan who is anything but a fan of the current administration, has met Bin Ladin, and who has been pointing out the danger from Jihadists since the early 90s). Outside of one trip to Europe (and allegations of one trip to the United States -- which Bin Ladin denies) Bin Ladin was isolated and indoctinated into the Wahabist point of view at a extremly young age.

      I have no idea where your getting your facts, but they don't resemble reality much. Even at a early age Bin Ladin was estranged from the west. Unlike most of his sibilings he refused to be educated in the west, left at a early age for Afghanistan, refused to work with moderates inside of Afghanistan, returned and opely called for world wide Jihad. His split from the Relief Office exposes that fallacy.

      It is a sign of how much he was opposed to the United States that he flipped out as badly as he did when the US came in to liberate Quwait. He didn't polarize against the US, he polarized against the Saudi's that let the dreaded Infidel on their lands. Bin Ladin was pre-disposed against the west at a early age.

    15. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30% of the population that really hate their own country and/or have no clue how the real world works

      I think that the grandparent doesn't really hate America per se, just the (inter)nationally recognized (the president, Rumsfeld, Barry Bonds, etc.).

      congress can garner even more power

      Considering that the executive branch appears to be being vested with more and more power, Congress may need some of that. We do want to stay a "democracy," don't we? The only problem would be if there was only one party in power and they wanted to force their ideals on you. Then we might have a problem.

    16. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      OK - from what you have read then why did the change his name?

      Also, try to get your information from more than one source (eg. actually bother to read a newspaper or listen to a radio instead of relying on one book and CNN).

    17. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you are joking right? Please?

      From Wikipedia:

      Osama bin Laden's name can be transliterated in several ways. The form used here, Osama bin Laden, is used by most English-language mass media, including CNN and the BBC. The FBI and Fox News use Usama bin Laden, often abbreviated to UBL (favored by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld). Less common renderings include Ussamah Bin Ladin and Oussama Ben Laden (used in French-language mass media). The latter part of the name can also be found as Binladen or Binladin. Officials at the United States Department of Defense encourage the now more commonly used "Osama" transliteration when his name became associated with the September 11th attacks in order to avoid confusion with U.S.A.M.A., the United States Army Medical Association.

      Strictly speaking, under the Arabic naming convention, it is incorrect to use "bin Laden" as though it were a Western surname. His full name means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of `Awad, son of Laden." However, the bin Laden family (or "Binladin," as they prefer to be known) generally use the name as a surname, in the Western style. The family company is known as the Binladin Brothers for Contracting and Industry and is one of the largest corporations in Saudi Arabia. For this reason, although the Arabic convention would be to refer to him either as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden," using "bin Laden" is in accordance with the family's own usage of the name and is the near-universal convention in Western references to him.

      Bin Laden has several aliases and nicknames, including the Prince, the Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shayekh, Hajj, and the Director.

      Obviously your last line doesn't even warrent a response.

    18. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      In case I haven't made this explicit enough, The first three letters of his name (Usa versus Osa) are pure transliteration issues. He has gone through several names, but that has actually been other other names (ie, no Binladin) not to Usama. He was known as Usama growing up.

      Another urban myth should hopefully die here.

    19. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Look back a few years to the war in Afganistan against the Russians and you'll see that the last line about multiple information sources does apply, and you may even find an answer to the question from the two line previous post which you failed to answer (possibly due to me typing it badly in a hurry). I've typed it correctly now:

      "From what you have read why did he change his name to Usama or Osama at that time?"

      I will be interested to hear that it was a sheer coincidence and that Usama is a name of deep significance and that the news reports from way back were misinformed. Please supply details and enlighten me or confirm that the book you are reading does not answer the question.

    20. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      He was known as Usama growing up.
      I haven't heard that one, the newspaper reports from earlier years and at least one BBC story pre-911 suggested he changed his name in Afganistan. Do you have a pre 911 source for that? After the WMD misinformation there's been a few people with opposing agendas spreading all kinds of stories, and you or I may have been taken in by some revisionism. His name certainly used to appear in the press a lot pre-911 as usama.

      All this aside - the premise of the subject here is correct - rebels in Afganistan against the Russians recieved large amounts of US funding and contemporary military technology such as several stinger missiles. It is speculated that there were US "advisors" on the ground there as well training rebel forces the same way it was done in central America at the time - but the evidence is a lot less concrete than finding US ordinance embedded in destroyed Russian equipment. It is seen as an accepted fact by many news sources that bin laden recieved training from a US agency to use the supplied US equipment.

    21. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      It's just plain old wrong. For sources before the war I recommend "Jihad" and "Taleban" (one of them was actually published after the war, but was mostly written before), as well as the endless stream of articles from the New York Times (including some by the same Mr. Bergan).

      It is not unusual to go by other names in Arabic culture. Bin Ladin went by at least three according to the most recent scholarship. However, his family name has stayed consistant. As for the meanings of the name, anyone in America who calls himself "Joshua" is the same as taking on the name of Jesus. We just don't look at the symbolism in the same way.

      You throw around phrases like "accepted facts by many media" like the following:

      "It is seen as an accepted fact by many news sources that bin laden recieved training from a US agency to use the supplied US equipment."

      Actually, no, it really isn't. If you look at almost all of the serious scholarship (as in people really acutallly studying this for history's sake rather then webloggers trying to make a political point) this charge is completly unfounded. Yes, it was at the end of the day the combination of the Mujahadeen and the United States Stinger missles that drove the soviets out of Afghanistan, but again, Bin Ladin did not have any link, direct or otherwise to the United States. In fact he split with his mentor at the relief office because of the aforementioned link with the United States and other moderate entities. Bin Ladin was dedicated to fighting a different type of war. He practically opened a base in the backyard of one of the soviet bases just so that they would "take more fire." He cared about inflicting as many casulties as possible on the Russians with Ak-47's, not by shooting down their helicopters.

      As a symbol UBL is very potent, as a military leader he is particularly tragic.

      So far everything you have posted is nothing but conspiricy theories that no factual evidence backs up. If you have real information to add, that isn't 5 year old bogus theories let me know.

    22. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Here are the details once again:

      a) Usama is a transliteration issue. His name at birth was (from Wikipedia). The choice of "Usama Bin Ladin" has nothing to do with the USA.

      b) Bin Ladin, like most in his generation in the arabic world, was profoundly affected by the failure of the war of 1967. Bin Ladin refused to even be educated in the west, prefering to be educated in Saudi Arabia. His story is not one of someone who turned against the United States (to whom he had always been hostile, even in Afghanistan) but rather turning against the Kingdom of Saud. Many people have claimed that Bin Ladin visited the west several times, but only one trip with his older brother (who eventually started to run BinLadin Saudi group) has clear documentation. No trip in the United States is ever recorded, despite the fact that his mentor Abdullah Azam made many trips to the US to raise money for Jihad.

      c) He actually changed his name from Bin Ladin while he was in Afghanistan, not to Bin Ladin (IIRC, it was Abdullah Abba)

      d) He was clearly radicalized before Afghanistan. Even Abdullah Azzam was too moderate for him.

    23. Re:The CIA trained Arabs to be terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What were they doing with bin laden? Winning his "heart and mind" http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=arc hive&daysum=2006-02-15#

  10. feh, meh, geh... by soren · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Top Secret Confidential
    Preface
    Conspiracy theories are nothing new to history. Plots to kill Caesar and overthrow Rome abounded, for instance. However, it is seldom that concrete clues to such plots come to light, and are generally known.
    The document you are about to read is real. It is no forgery, as alleged of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." or actual forgeries such as those of Anne Frank, or (more recently) Hitler's diary.

    "TOP SECRET: Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An introductory Programming Manual" was uncovered quite by accident on July 7th, 1986 when an employee of Boeing Aircraft Co. purchased a surplus IBM copier for scrap parts at a sale, and discovered inside details of a plan, hatched in embryonic days of the "Cold War" which called for control of the masses through manipulation of Industry, peoples' pastimes, education and political learning's. It called for a quite revolution, putting brother against brother, and diverting the public's attention from what is really going on.

    For all intents and purposes, this document has "come to pass," much as Henry Ford, Sr. said the Protocols (regardless of their veracity) applied to the events of his day.

    It is reprinted in its virgin form, with diagrams, as a touch of reality.

    {Note; I removed the diagrams for reasons of ease of getting the information onto the internet.}

    It is heavy reading, but it will (as it well should) spur you to read further, keep your eyes and ears open, and sound an alarm in Zion, for though she presently dwells with Babylon's daughter (Micah 4), her redemption draweth nigh.

    Truth bears no fear.

    --- TOP SECRET ---
    SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUITE WARS
    An introductory programing manual.
    OPERATORS RESEARCH TECHNICAL MANUAL
    TM-SW7905.1
    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Security

    Historical Introduction

    Political Introduction

    Energy

    Descriptive Introduction of the Silent Weapon ... only url I can link ... http://soren.org/gov/money.html ... feel free to contact for ... \/\/hatever ... ;-)

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:feh, meh, geh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already spammed once above.

    2. Re:feh, meh, geh... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It called for a quite revolution, putting brother against brother, and diverting the public's attention from what is really going on.

      This has been the standard operating proceedure for the united states handling of it's citizens for decades now.

      This is nothing new, look at how the Tv show 24 is mostly a pile of current administration propaganda keeping the american public scared of TERRORISM at every turn even though you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning on a sunny day than being hurt in a terrorist act on american soil.

      Keeping the public afraid is very useful. it keeps them motivated as well as distracted.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:feh, meh, geh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'm supposed to believe someone who uses apostrophes to make plurals and can't spell "quiet"?

    4. Re:feh, meh, geh... by rubypossum · · Score: 1

      This post makes me wish there was a "Interesting but Bulsh*t" mod setting. :-D

      --
      I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
    5. Re:feh, meh, geh... by chgros · · Score: 1

      actual forgeries such as (snip) Anne Frank (snip)'s diary
      WHAT?

  11. honey pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets put mis information out there so we can track who is trying to gather information

  12. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Gestapo was a secret police and its facilities were perfectly well known (and feared).

    (Damn, I just broke Godwin's law...)

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  13. How do they know it's reliable info? by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the information is correct or just bogus data planted?

    Is this "story" itself planted by the CIA? (not that we'd care either way)

    2600? Funny number there.

    1. Re:How do they know it's reliable info? by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      Maybe not the CIA, but how about DoD intelligence or Total Information Awareness? Part of Rumsfeld's reorganization has been to absorb most of the operational intelligence into the NSA and the DoD. They've also put a political crony in at the top of CIA (Porter Goss), in order to let it wither.

      Call this prepping the market for the dismantling of the CIA, and the traditional posse comitatus divide between domestic and foreign, and thus civilian and military intelligence.

      The most frustrating thing, is the worse the political heads of these bureaucracies f things up, the more leverage they give to the party to re-organize government as a way to 'fix' these problems. All the while completely avoiding accountability. /This is me pulling out my hair //Will need tinfoil hat to cover bald spot, not to keep out mind control rays.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

  14. Following the money by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Insightful
    IIRC, over half the CIA budget is spent on counter-intelligence, which includes programs of disinformation.

    Whatever the Chicago Tribune has uncovered, one might presume that they were expected to.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
    1. Re:Following the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, over half the CIA budget is spent on counter-intelligence, which includes programs of disinformation.

      Perhaps that figure is part of the disinformation.

    2. Re:Following the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      RC, over half the CIA budget is spent on counter-intelligence, which includes programs of disinformation.


      Speaking of counter-intel, we had a 1st Sgt in our electronic warfare maintenance unit who came from a "counter-intel" background. Firstly, since we were techs we weren't impressed (now a new high speed demultiplexer, THAT would be impressive). Secondly, he was such an idiot we redubbed "counter-intel" as "anti-intel".
    3. Re:Following the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what he wanted you to think!

    4. Re:Following the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's what he wanted you to think!


      ROTFL Classic!

      Col Flagg, is that you?
    5. Re:Following the money by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Whatever the Chicago Tribune has uncovered, one might presume that they were expected to.
      That's assuming an entirely competant agency and an entirely incompetant newspaper. After ignoring the executive appointments that would do better service as horse judges you still have a very large organisation that is going to spread information about just in the course of normal operations.

      It may be conforting to think of them as all powerful and all knowing - but that leads to elaborate conspiricy theories when one angry man with a gun kills a President.

  15. Equal opportunities employer by 15Bit · · Score: 3, Funny
    This is the problem with equal opportunities employment - you can't turn someone away for being stupid or incompetent (or just plain unsuitable). In the old days incompetent spies got shot and no-one knew or cared (And frankly, any "covert operative" who books into a hotel in their real name when on "company business" deserves to get shot.). Now they have to receive 5 verbal warnings, 3 written warnings and a final interview with their line management to "clarify their career objectives".

    And even after all that they can probably sue for unfair dismissal.

    1. Re:Equal opportunities employer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do dead people sue?

  16. what this likely means, is justification.... by toomanyhandles · · Score: 1

    ..justification for even more restricive measures and uncontrolled gov't access and powers without any oversight than already exists.

    Which would be easier for the CIA- to really fix and address a problem, or to make talking about problems a crime, necessitating secret interrogaton and incarceration of those who talk about what they see as concerns?

  17. feh, meh, geh... by soren · · Score: 0, Troll
    --
    :wq
  18. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by cliffy2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, you fulfilled Godwin's Law. (To paraphrase -- the number of posts in any given thread approaches infinity, the probability of an analogy to Nazism being mentioned approaches 1.) The only way that you may have, in fact, violated Godwin's Law is in your very mention of it, which may negate any "thread-ending" characteristics that an invocation of said law possesses.

  19. So what were the search techniques? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They said that they won't disclose the search teqhniques they used, so can anyone take a crack at guessing? Do we have any google-fu masters here?

  20. Thoughts and feelings by babbling · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not too sure this article should be posted under "your rights online". It should be more like "the CIA's rights online".

    ... look, the poor CIA are getting their privacy invaded because people are looking at what they've been searching for!! :-(

    Maybe the CIA could get a blanket, some hot chocolate, and sit down with the DOJ to share their thoughts and feelings about this invasion of their privacy. Perhaps then the DOJ might stop trying to demand search data from Google.

  21. Lost in Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dyck

    Now...

    Is that pronounced 'dyke' or 'dick'?

  22. What a waste by toupsie · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How much time, money and news cycles did we waste with Valerie Plame? Google would have told you she was working undercover at Nathan's. They even knew about it in Duluth. Well, I guess "Scooter" deserves to prosecuted not for revealing a known "secret" but for being a grown man named "Scooter".

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:What a waste by encopitt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ummm.. you're muddling information like a regular Rush Limbaugh. Look at the date under the picture: Valerie Plame, February 14, 2006 That's about 4 weeks ago... exactly how does that prove that her identity as a covert operative was widely known? And Scooter deservers to be prosecuted for LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. That is a crime after all. I wonder what it would take for you sheep to start coming to your own conclusions based on available evidence, rather than spouting off inconsistent, incorrect, and irrelevent bullshit from the Rove spin machine?

    2. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scooter is being prosecuted not for revealing her name, but for lying about having done so to the FBI and the grand jury.

    3. Re:What a waste by skillet-thief · · Score: 2, Informative

      Scooter is being prosecuted for lying to the Grand Jury, and that is all.

      Even if Valerie Plame turns out just to have been a McDonald's cashier all along, Scooter has to deal with the fact that he lied to the grand jury.

      --

      Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire

    4. Re:What a waste by encopitt · · Score: 1

      Understood, I was commenting that he deserves to be indicted/prosecuted for leaking classified information. If anyone in the Clinton administration pulled something like this, you know that all hell would have broken loose on the talk radio/cable news front.

    5. Re:What a waste by skillet-thief · · Score: 1

      I hear you, on all counts: deserving, getting what he deserves.

      --

      Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire

  23. Give him time by randyjg2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The CIA is changing. Give them time.

    The following article explains some of the issues behind the Tribune article
    http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/26366

    The agency is ... complicated, and often the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Its the nature of the beast it's riding. (well, technically, it's in the belly of the beast, or perhaps the cloaca if you are HQ)

    I have no doubt Goss is horrified. He just took over the CIA, and what GS manager would enjoy an outsider showing him a clear look at his department? And Goss hasn't had a chance ot fix things yet. THat is, if that's his goal...with the CIA, who knows?

    By the way, didn't Goss inherit an agency that was once run by George Bush? It would explain a lot.

    The CIA has other problems as well. The worse is that it facing some competition from private firms like StratFor(sorta like the US Post Office and Federal Express). It can't be much fun to be a world famous secret agency and having to explain to the Intelligence committee why you are being scooped by some small company in Austin,

    For those of you who haven't heard of it, StratFor (http://www.stratfor.com/) is a private intelligence firm, with several hundred thousand customers, that is the CIA for multinationals and private individuals. It is considered somewhat more accurate than the CIA. http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050313/is-stratfo r-credible/

    Hmm.. if the CIA is getting rid of people, that means they are hiring. I would like to apply as an intelligence analyst, or maybe an In Tel Q VC... (There is a rumor the easiest way to apply for a job with the CIA is write in on your computer and wait for ADVISE to pick it up. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.htm l).

    1. Re:Give him time by tenchiken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow. That is the first time ever I have seen someone buy so completly into StratFor... You are aware that StratFor like the CIA and every other intellegence agency on the face of the planet was convienced that Saddam had WMD? Or that the Iranian's were behind the insurgancy in Iraq? Or that the isrealli's know everything about Iranian WMD?

      As far as your George H Bush cheap shot, remember that the CIA was built to take on and stop the Ruskies. Not terrorism. In comparison, foreign power survallience is a hell of a lot easier then tracking down guys that no one has ever heard of who like to blow themselves up where they can kill the maximal number of jews, christians, hindus, women and children.

      Frankly, this is a much harder question. And as much as we have heard critics of the administration blast them for every single decision, I have yet to see a workable plan from anyone on how we (as Americans) handle this problem long term other then capitulate or nuke them all.

    2. Re:Give him time by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      1) StratFor has the best track record of any intelligence firm, see the url in the recent posting.

      2) I don't "buy" into StratfFor, I am not even a subscriber. I do my own, independent analysis, but I am impressed with theirs.

      3) You are right, it was a cheap shot. But common, how often does such a perfect straight line show up? I am only human, I couldn't resist. Besides, it's traditional to blame every problem on previous management.

      4)I am aware ofthe CIA's problems adapting to a new reality, that was the whole POINT of my post. It wasn't criticism, but an explanation. For the record, I think they are doing a great job under the circumstances.

      6) If the CIA's sole, or even main, job was locating terrorist, I would agree. But the America has far bigger problems than terrorists(mainly other nations), and the CIA IS the main defense against them. The field agents have been doing quit well, but there have been a number of problems with HQ, as mentioned in the url I posted.

    3. Re:Give him time by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      The entire point of Stratfor (once again) is that it is primarily Signals Intellegence. Ie, it does a great job consolidating information out there from a variety of sources. The entire failure of both 9/11 and Iraq was the complete failure of Human Intellegence.

      Saddam lined up his staff in 1998 and made plans on how to use his "WMDs." He ringed Fallujah in 1999 with soilders in bio-chem suits to threaten them. Signals intellegence told us, Saddam has WMD. Human Intellegence was needed to figure out that no, Saddam was bluffing.

      That continues to be the problem with the CIA/NSA. Going to one more SigInt organization will not fix it.

    4. Re:Give him time by odin53 · · Score: 1

      GHWB was CIA director between 1976-1977. There were 7 DCIs between Bush and Goss. How is that a "perfect straight line"? No reasonable person could blame the state of the CIA on a director that spent one year leading it 30 years ago.

    5. Re:Give him time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...and often the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Its the nature of the beast it's riding. (well, technically, it's in the belly of the beast, or perhaps the cloaca..."

      you trying to give BadAnalogyGuy a run for his money?

    6. Re:Give him time by oldstrat · · Score: 1

      The failure of 9/11 and WMD in Iraq was one of management, not intelligence. The intel was there in both cases, but management faile (for whatever reason) to make proper use of it. As for CIA secrets and who is responsible for keeping them secret, there is only one anser - the CIA and people directly entrusted with those secrets. If you make it the job of reporters or civilian search engines to keep state secrets then you make the state a sloppy pig that relies on enforcement rather than actually keeping secrets. Someone said 'we' used to call the CIA 'The Company' - no so, folks in the CIA used to call it 'The Company'... Did we just see a fool out himself? Agency folks have always been known to have obtuse views.

    7. Re:Give him time by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      Straight line as in setup for a joke.

    8. Re:Give him time by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      Now that's just plain wrong.

      StratFor's strength is it's human intelligence, though it does a good job with signals as well. Yes, they brag about using only public intelligence, but a lot of that public intelligence is tips from contacts about public things that imply things not public.

      Stratfor has a huge network of contacts around the world, mainly because of its policy of hiring ex intelligence officers from many nations. They are rumored to often broker information for other information, something you can hardly do with sigint.

    9. Re:Give him time by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      You miss the definition completly. By your own admission they only use public intellegence. They don't have anyone on the payroll. And unless Chemical Ali had his own blog, information that is truely critical, for example that Saddam didn't have WMD, and just was claiming/bluffing that he did to keep Iran, the US and the Shiites at bay would never have been revealed via this mechanism.

      I am not dispariging Stratfor, I am pointing out that dependence on this type of signals intellegence is what led us (and the previous administration) to the philosophy of regime change.

    10. Re:Give him time by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read both the 9/11 and the WMD reports, both of them state explicitly that there were _no_ valid sources inside of either Al Qaeda or inside of Iraq. That means they had to fall back to Signals Intellegence. Singals intellegence like the video tape they revealed last week that had Saddam on tape planning on hiding WMD.

      Signals Intellegence is important. It was a vital asset in WWII. But for how important enigma was, it wasn't until the Brits turned every agent in London that we really gained the intellegence advantage.

    11. Re:Give him time by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      Heres a nice little article from Austin Business Journal absolutely refuting your claim

      http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2002/04/ 08/smallb1.html

      "During the Kosovo war, for example, we were regularly receiving information from people on the ground, inside Serbia and Yugoslavia. We could tell when an airplane took off from Aviano, Italy, when it crossed over the Croatian border, when it dumped its bombs and when it returned," Friedman says.

      THats not Human Intelligence?

    12. Re:Give him time by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      It's a question of scale. I know when my neighboor leaves to go to work. That doesn't tell me if Saddam had WMD. America needs to develop it's human intellegence. Not's it's sigint.

    13. Re:Give him time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam lined up his staff in 1998 and made plans on how to use his "WMDs." He ringed Fallujah in 1999 with soilders in bio-chem suits to threaten them. Signals intellegence told us, Saddam has WMD. Human Intellegence was needed to figure out that no, Saddam was bluffing.

      It's also possible that Saddam thought he still had WMD, but didn't -- i.e. it may be that underlings hid from him an inability to reconstitute stocks of nerve agent. If that was case, it would take really quite good human intelligence to figure out what was going on.

    14. Re:Give him time by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      As much as I would like to believe this, and that somehow the CIA wasn't wrong, the facts at the end of the day are that Saddam fooled everyone. He fooled the Europeans, he fooled the Americans, he fooled the Shiites and the Kurds.....

      Not that it helped him at all. Poor Saddam siting their in a Shiite court... Payback's a b*tch

    15. Re:Give him time by bandannarama · · Score: 1

      Minor correction: It was Dubya's father, George H.W. Bush (our 41st president), who once ran the CIA, not Dubya himself.

      -- bandannarama

      --
      Bandannarama
    16. Re:Give him time by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      I know, after all the flap about junior's cronyism, and poor hiring practices, it was just so perfect a setup for a joke about reforming the CIA's "retired in place" managers, though it should be noted that most of those managers in question were hired when senior was in charge. Just my luck I attracted the attention of the only SlashDot reader without a sense of humor.

      Goss has a tough haul ahead of him, the CIA's worst problem, really, is the competition from StratFor and other private firms (it's a little known, but thriving industry) for top talent. (see this reprint in Free Republic from the New York Times magazine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/897621/po sts)

      The really talented analysts and field personnel can make a lot more money in private industry (last november, one bragged he made $2 million last year in a private 2 person startup he created because he was bored with retirement. I believe him. Information has always been money in Wall Street, and even the leavings are immensly valuable)

      Goss is left with a lot of people who dedicated and patriotic enough to stay...and a lot who couldn't cut it. His major challenge will be identifying the deadwood, and attracting new talent.

      I wish Goss well...the CIA still has an important role to play, and, despite the current hype, terrorism is only a minor blip on the radar, if that. We still live in world where nation competes against nation, and the CIA's prime mission remains the same, helping America gain whatever advantage it can.

  24. In Other News... by Crisses · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... The Tribune has suddenly vanished without a trace. The offices are scrubbed clean, the files are empty, and there's a For Lease sign up by the building management company.

    ... Hundreds of families across Illinois have filed new missing persons reports this month, a drastic rise from the usual numbers. Oddly, a high percentage of the newly missing persons seem to have worked for the Chicago Tribune.

    --
    ---- I'm out of your mind!
    1. Re:In Other News... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Oddly, a high percentage of the newly missing persons seem to have worked for the Chicago Tribune.

      What's a Chicago Tribune? These people have always been unemployed. Something seems to have made them disappear. I don't think Chicago ever had a newspaper...definitely not anything called a Tribune. Nope, never heard of it.

      </bigbrother>

  25. Is the Chicago Tribune really that naive? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Come on guys, as this information has obviously been fabricated by the CIA in order to smoke out anyone trying to find info about them via the internet. Are the tin foil hats not tight enough today? This is the freaking CIA, they invented the mind-control ray! (No matter what the NSA would like you to believe).

    --
    Why not fork?
  26. The Company by Chatmag · · Score: 1

    We used to refer to the CIA as "The Company"

    Now, when saying "The Company", we'll be referring to Google.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    1. Re:The Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We used to refer to the CIA as "The Company"

      Funny, I thought people used to refer to the CIA as "the CIA"...

    2. Re:The Company by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      We've been saying that "Google knows all" for years....but nobody really believed us until now.

    3. Re:The Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no, It's "The Kompany" not "The Company".

      The Kompany is in reality a special division of the CIA, created to infiltrate the Open Sause Terrorist Group. Their special weapon, The Mozzarella project, contained a truth serum (mozarella) to make all Open Sause members spill their guts about the russian KGB Microsoft-drink organization.

      I know this because I was analprobed when I was under the influence of Mozzarella!

      Damn pizza delivery guy, I always knew he was up to no good.

  27. For the Clueless by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    Ok, so like 90% of what CIA does is not covert operations. They actually employ secretaries and useless middle management folks like other organizations. Not everyone is a uber kool secret agent. In fact, that secret agent role is a tiny portion of what they do. see for yourselves.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  28. Certainly someone wants you to believe that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe this was all leaked to the papers. But look at what it's done. Now they're uncovering info on LOTS of other agents and exposing them (and this is done by the papers....the intelligence community did this back when it was first brought to light).

    This is why you don't reveal the identities of intelligence officers.

  29. what the CIA really doesn't want you to know by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:what the CIA really doesn't want you to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Booooring!

      what about the .secretStuff/ and the .pr0n/ folders?

    2. Re:what the CIA really doesn't want you to know by Mark-Allen · · Score: 2, Funny
      >> what about the .secretStuff/ and the .pr0n/ folders?

      Disallow: /_notes = secret agent reports (MS Word)
      Disallow: /Templates = secret agent expenses report forms
      Disallow: /includes = secret agent cool gadgets and stuff
      Disallow: /javascript = secret agent secret messages in foreign language
      Disallow: /scripts = secret agent instructions
      Disallow: /graphics = secret agent pr0n (well, duh?)
      Disallow: /search = secret agent torrents

      I mean, come on, do you think they would have this hidden under super-double-secret names? It's the CIA, for crying out loud! They hide this stuff under normal names which almost all the people who'd see them wouldn't think twice about. Similar to "Nothing to see here." and "The Purloined Letter".

      I do the same thing by hiding all my pr0n under "My pr0n" and nobody ever guesses what's there.

      Duh?
      --
      If you can stay calm, while all around you is chaos... then you probably haven't completely understood the question.
  30. wonder how long.. by mliikset · · Score: 1

    ..that has been possible, and if it has been only recently, whether the white house rat can use it as a defense.

    As I get older, I become more gullible from seeing the most outrageous stuff become commonplace. And all too often, acceptable.

  31. google knows everything - ask him? by Elixon · · Score: 1

    Do you want to know the nearest military facitlity?

    search: "secret military factory near me"
    url: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=secret+milit ary+factory+near+me
    result: is probably different based on your current location and language settings

    --
    Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
  32. Three excuses. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    FOXNews.com has published an article which may be of interest: Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth .

    Of interest to who?

    Those who forgot that FOX persecuted its own journalists for trying to expose Monsanto's BGH artificial hormone scam? That Fox fought against the whisltleblowers by arguing that FOX was not obligated under freedom of speech to tell the truth? --And won! And that they continue to persecute the journalists? Those guys?

    That's just one instance of FOX's bald faced lying and villainy. They are committed to lying for corporate and government interests. NOTHING they report is worth the spit it's sent on.

    There are SO many gaping holes in FOX's integrity that I can only see three excuses for anybody buying into their propaganda. 1. Laziness, 2. Foolishness, or 3. Being Evil.


    -FL

  33. Data mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Seems like they discovered all the identities by using data mining techniques on publicly (for a small fee or free) accessable databases.

    A senior U.S. official, reacting to the computer searches that produced the names and addresses, said, "I don't know whether Al Qaeda could do this, but the Chinese could."
    ... remember, we were never at war with Eurasia, we are in war with Oceania.
  34. You know what this means don't you?.... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .... it means they are trying to take more of our rights away.

    whether or not the story is true, it is in fact presenting the public with this idea that the freedom of research and press are dangerious to the government that is suppose to be protecting these rights.

    There seems to be another story on slashdot at the moment along this same line.

    Next thing you know we won't be allowed to talk to our neighbors without government approval.

    When are enough people going to wake up and realize 9/11 was a direct result of US wrongful manipulation of world economy.

    Do a search on "Trillion dollar bet" Read the transcript and realize that much money doesn't just appear or vanish into nowhere.

    CIA employee information????? Huh? What?

    Don't do others wrong and you won't have reason to be parionoid of retaliation.

  35. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by kfg · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Gestapo had a secret branch whose facilities were not well known. They were, in fact, secret.

    There was also a secret police not allied with the Gestapo, because the watchers needed to be afraid of someone as well. These were completely secret police who answered only to Hitler and/or Goering.

    Yes, the Gestapo also had a public facing branch, if only because in order to rat out your neighbor you needed someplace to go to do it.

    Perhaps the CIA, rather than being remiss in their duties for having a publicly accessable branch, actually have some clue as to what they are doing by having offices and phones that the general public are perfectly aware of.

    And, of course, in America, the people watching the watchers are supposed to be "The People."

    KFG

  36. Sneaky Plan by nicolastheadept · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, it could just be a really clever diversion.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  37. Oh boy. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    1. The CIA is stupid. They make mistakes and show themselves.

    2. The CIA is extremely smart. They know how to manipulate media and public opinion, they know how to create operatives who have no identity whatsoever and keep them secret.

    3. The Chicago Tribune employs zealous reporters eager to uncover and share the truth.

    4. The Chicago Tirbune employs cowardly scum willing to do the bidding of whoever has a big stick or a deep pocket, (usually both).

    Each is a collection of people. The problem is that the good-intentioned guys (who are aware enough to do any good), are few in number and are actively opposed by the bad elements from holding positions of power.

    It's a logic circuit; power only moves in one direction. The Good Americans at the CIA and the Chicago Tribune by virtue of being Good, do not harass and terrorize and subvert the Bad Americans working at the CIA and the Chicago Tribune. The same cannot be said in the reverse. Thus, the Bad Americans rise in power while the Good Americans remain stationary or are pressed out. Allow enough time to pass, and the whole structure starts to stink.


    -FL

  38. tinfoil hat time by zuluechopapa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what if all the leaked info is just a cover to make a cuase for the justic dept to be able to get access to search engine data and delete/change ndexes and data as needed to protect covert operations? In related news, I've spent several hours playing splintercell... does this qualify me as a CIA agent, now?

    --
    even the magic 8 ball has an opinion on email clients: Outlook not so good.
  39. Re:slashdot = digg, but delayed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real men use yigg

  40. Consolidate funding sources for intelligence by puzzled · · Score: 1



        Right now the U.S. intelligence community is hamstrung by having to deal with something like 80 congressional committees for its funding. It is a national priority, the failure of which got 3,000+ civilians killed, but its not enough of a priority that we actually DO something about it.

        Call or write your Senator today and indicate your support for streamlining their funding.

    --
    I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
    1. Re:Consolidate funding sources for intelligence by whitroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me, the "failure got 3000 civilians killed"? What about the presidential security briefing, a month before 9/11, entitled "bin Laden plans to strike inside the US"?

      And what about the US MURDERING somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqis, on the basis of no WMDs?

      Now, unless you think that we've spent tens of billions of dollars on what, three? four? five? (CIA, FBI, NSA, Army intel, Pentagon Intel, etc) agencies completely staffed by clones of Maxwell Smart, the only intelligence failure, either through ideological blinders or deliberately for ideological reasons, is the administration and the GOP.

      And the fools who voted for them.

              mark

    2. Re:Consolidate funding sources for intelligence by mabu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't it funny how nobody wants to actually call attention to the FACT that Bush had warning that Bin Laden was going to attack the U.S. as well as intelligence indicating the intended use of planes as weapons. And he apparently ignored this. The OP is right. There was failure which got 3000 people killed. Failure by the President and his administration and the people underneath them who disregarded critical intelligence.

      And people are surprised that there's supposedly secret information publicly available?

    3. Re:Consolidate funding sources for intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I didn't know better, I'd suggest you might be Bush or someone in his cabinet. I didn't think there were many left who still were unconditional administration sycophants. Then again, maybe you work for Halliburton or some other defense contractor. I know you're not Bush. He can't read well, much less use a computer. He's still looking for the "any key".

      The Office of Homeland Security has done such a bang-up job managing taxpayer funds, with billions disappearing into black holes, and boondoggles, we should streamline the procurement process so there are less checks and balances? Even if you work for Lockeed, can you still really make such a statement without an accompanying evil smirk? I don't think so.

    4. Re:Consolidate funding sources for intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only people would defer to their superiors, and place the full financial power of the nation in the hands of the beneficent autocrats, we could at last assure its eternal safety.

    5. Re:Consolidate funding sources for intelligence by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Today's QOTD is a particularly appropriate response to your sentiments:

      "The multitude of books is making us ignorant."
          - Voltaire

      There are a multitude of reasons for intelligence failures, particularly the signal to noise ratio. When there are volumes of data out there, it's difficult to know which are credible and which are not. Even titles such as "Bin Laden determined to Strike US" are taken out of context; i.e. the hundreds and hundreds of other probable titles, such as "Hamas likely to execute diplomats," or "Disgruntled ex-military are possible threats," etc., etc. Furthermore, without knowing a date or time, even knowing the exact method the hijackers planned to use is no more useful than knowing "a burglar will likely come through an opening in your home." It's even less useful, because you probably only have 1 house, but there are thousands of flights every day, and millions of travellers. Security is not free, either in dollars or personal sacrifice, nor is it priceless. In the vast majority of cases, it's only cost effective to provide some illusion of security, because the cost/benefit ratio quickly passes the point of diminishing returns.

      But getting back to the point, the idea that the government can protect us from any and all threats is a childish sort of naivete. No rational person complains that the police aren't preventing all crime. Why? Because we realize that it's impossible for a small segment of the population (law enforcement) to know what everybody else is up to at all times. Similarly, the idea that we can know what the rest of the world is up to is fantastic.

      We like to think physical security is much more basic than, say, digital security, because we believe it's much easier to maintain. But the reality is that ALL security, from an external perspective, is not about whether or not there are no holes, but simply exploiting the weakest link until you MAKE a hole, if necessary. Digital security tends to fail much more rapidly because there are potentially thousands or millions of people testing all aspects, but physical security is really not intrinsically stronger.. there are simply fewer people testing it.

      One of the problems is that we're not used to hearing the word "No" from our government. We elect the leaders, and they do what we say. We say jump, they ask how high. We say we want to be secure, they tell us we are. What else are they going to do? If any politician said "Security is often just a perception, and it's always relative," he'd be booted out of office at the next election. Nobody wants to know the truth -- we want our government to lie to us, to tell us that they can do the impossible, that they're superheros with powers beyond those of us mere mortals, and so that's what they tell us. And then we get pissed when we find out they were lying.

    6. Re:Consolidate funding sources for intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Isn't it funny how nobody wants to actually call attention to the FACT that Bush had warning that Bin Laden was going to attack the U.S. as well as intelligence indicating the intended use of planes as weapons. And he apparently ignored this. The OP is right. There was failure which got 3000 people killed. Failure by the President and his administration and the people underneath them who disregarded critical intelligence.

      Even if they knew for certain that a bunch of Arab guys were going to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, there wasn't much they could do about it.

      It is very difficult to detect a box cutter in a carry-on bag. The only metal part is its blade. You can easily modify the blade to appear harmless, and then just break it to expose a new cutting surface when on the plane. As far as I can tell, reliably detecting these things is practically impossible via x-ray screening or even hand inspection.

      The only crime that any of the future hijackers were known to have committed was that a few had expired visas. Arresting these people for being in the US illegally was the best chance to pick up on the plot.

      Moussaoui of course was actually picked up, but his laptop was not searched since senior members of the FBI felt it would be a violation of FISA rules. If any of the other guys with invalid visas had been picked up, perhaps something clearly incriminating would have been found on their persons. But probably it would have been the same as Moussaoui -- knives, shin guards, flight manuals, a laptop, but nothing in itself illegal.

      Another chance would have been a stricter no-fly list.

      But we already see enough complaints about the one we have now. What would people have thought of such draconian changes before 9/11? Plus, at least some of the hijackers would not have been on the list anyway, due to having no criminal record and no know connection to terrorism. And if any were on such a list, they would have found out during the test run, and could have just flown under a fake name with a fake id.

      Futhermore -- although it's hard to remember now -- a hot political issue of the day was racial profiling.

      During that summer, the government was actively studying whether airport security procedures, including the then-existing no-fly list, were discriminatory to Arabs:

      4 JUNE 2001: DETROIT
      The U.S. Department of Transportation began surveying passengers in an effort to determine whether racial profiting is a problem at U.S. airports. Federal officials require passengers on certain outgoing Northwest Airlines flights to complete surveys that ask questions about race, religion, national origin, gender and citizenship. By the end of the survey the department expects to have answers from about 40,000 passengers on more than 400 flights. Arab-American leaders said that the government chose Metro airport to be the test model for its national policy on screening for security threats because metro Detroit has the highest concentration of Arab Americans in the country. The Transportation Department says the information from the surveys will be used to see if the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System disproportionately targets minorities. [link]

      It was not a political environment that would have welcomed the necessary changes.

      Another method would be passive controls on board the aircraft: namely, strengthening cockpit doors and requiring the crew to leave the door closed and locked during most of the flight, and especially during any hijack attempts. I suppose this might have worked, but it's hard for me to imagine. The flight crew would have a hard time staying in the cabin while passengers are being murdered and flight attendants are calling for help.

      Finally, there's the possibility of establishing procedures for the military to shoot down hijacked planes. But even now, this is politically unacceptabl

  41. Interesting! by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

    Appears the newspaper is a bit anal when it comes to displaying the news. Do a google search as follows. First link is the story. Works fine that way.

    http://news.google.com/news?q=cia%20chicago%20trib une&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.moz illa:en-US:official&percentage_served=100&sa=N&tab =wn

  42. All this from a Credit Report? by xoip · · Score: 1

    I understand how they can get employer and address information from a credit report...feed that to a telephone directory search...check out the location with Google Maps but...Where did the list of employees come from in the first place... Karl Rove?

    1. Re:All this from a Credit Report? by typo83 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? an online resume for a washington lawyer had listed as previous employment, a front company that was 'known' to be a CIA front company. A simple google search for anything with the name of the front company would have brought up that resume. It is all about associations, and eliminating those associations that aren't conclusive, like your next door neighbor works for the CIA. Have you ever tried to decrypt those parking permits on auto windshields? The ones that permit you to park your car somewhere?

    2. Re:All this from a Credit Report? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? an online resume for a washington lawyer had listed as previous employment, a front company that was 'known' to be a CIA front company.

      It's worse than that. He actually listed that he worked for the CIA on his resume. He also listed the front company. From there, you can use a google search to find CIA employees who were more careful about their online resumes.

      And when you find a set of PO Boxes and phone numbers that several of these people used for contact info, you can go on to other online databases, and find CIA employees who don't have an online resume.

      Pretty soon, you've got a few thousand candidates who are likely to have worked for the CIA.

      A lot of this information will be available via databases that date from the 1980s and early 1990s, but which have only recently become so easily searchable.

      The internet makes the dead past come back to haunt you. It may seem a little unfair, but that's life.

      Right now, if you make even a single post blogging the details of your torrid sex life under a pseudonym, you ought to realize that you should be very careful. The information will live forever on search engines, and at some later date you may accidentally post something else that links the pseudonym to an identity that you don't want associated with it.

      But much the same kind of searching can be done on information created before the age of search engines , the web, or even the internet. When I made a usenet post in the early 1990s, I didn't imagine that anyone who knows the name that I used would be able to find it years later.

      As more information gets added from phone books, corporate mailing lists, the OCRing of all library contents from the 1980s, 1970s, etc., the past becomes accessible in ways that no one anticipated.

      Cover procedures that worked fine in the 1980s are retroactively broken. There's not a whole lot that can be done about it. The CIA can ask Google to remove certain records from their searchable index. But with all the other potentially compromising databases out there, it's a real Whac-A-Mole problem.

      And every time you take a whack, you're telling the name of an agent or a front company to someone without clearance. If they figure out who's requesting the change, and why... then it's a real problem.

  43. Corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    .. to the first paragraph. Some of you are going to want to call this a biased opinion, I suggest you check the dictionary on the terms I'm using.

    MILAN, Italy -- When the CIA decides to "kidnap" a terrorism suspect living abroad for torture in Egypt or another friendly Middle East nation, it spares no expense.
  44. Vaildity questioned, but protection more important by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    I think the CIA would make us think they're not stupid enough to post this kind of information on the Internet. At least that's what I think...! I would realy question the validity of the information posted there.

    Granted, the reporter found the information on the internet in publicly available information. Even if this information is not true, I think its more important to take steps not to publish this information found. The people that work for these agencies risk their lives to do what they do.

  45. Breaking development. by deep44 · · Score: 1

    .. ironically, details of what happened along with the whereabouts of each missing person have turned up on Google. CIA unavailable for comment.

    Next: Google founders kidnapped in broad daylight.

  46. Re:One word... by symbolic · · Score: 1


    9/11

    Need anyone say more?

  47. Re:One word... by SkankinMonkey · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'd like to say yes for the simple reason that it's the only thing Bush and the other Republicans say when you try to confront them about their Orwellian wet-dreams.

  48. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one noticed that is was about 2600 identites? :)

  49. issue:oversight by mliikset · · Score: 1

    at some point, things that need to be secret must be kept that way to keep those of us with potentially treacherous intent from furthering their goals. Unfortunately, things done in secret are subject to improper shortcuts and other abuses of power. This is a tough issue, and unfortunately some abuses aren't discovered until well after the damage(if any real damage exists, sometimes not entirely clear)is done.

    1. Re:issue:oversight by justthinkit · · Score: 0
      at some point, things that need to be secret must be kept that way to keep those of us with potentially treacherous intent from furthering their goals. Unfortunately, things done in secret are subject to improper shortcuts and other abuses of power.

      When we say "secret", everyone freaks out. And of course the only way something can be truly secret is for only one person to know about it.

      Hence the better term "need to know" -- things that the CIA/FBI/military/etc. doesn't want the whole world to know about are only told to a small group of people based on their reliability and need to know. But this would make for a smaller /. thread.

      --
      I come here for the love
  50. My perverse need... by Foamy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... for a dose of mashochism now and then led my remote to stop on Fox last night.

    Wow. Holy Fucking Shit. They've gone off the deep end more than I suspected.

    The few minutes my stomach could stand to watch before being forced to regurgitate my wonderful New Mexico Green Chile Posole, was 100% pure propaganda. I mean WWI, Wilson type propaganda. The segement was titled something like "Three ways to kick Iran's fucking ass: Booyah to the Mulahs!" The gist was that we'd waltz into Iran with an Army--I guess they left out the draft part in order to find enough 'willing' troops-- and kick some Axis of Evil ass. Fuck Yeah. They did leave out the part about the path being strewn with fragrant rose petals. Sigh.

    Also, in direct response to your post, a 4th excuse:
    4. Being Plain Fucking Stupid

    1. Re:My perverse need... by maelstrom · · Score: 1

      MMMMM New Mexico Green Chile!!!!

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
  51. We Are Lucky They (the CIA) Are Not Smart by cannuck · · Score: 0

    A few years back I was in Paris France. There was a simply car to car rear end traffic accident - maybe $100 damage.

    The French local police (are in fact centralized in France - one huge police force) - had roped off the street with yellow tape - has a special investigations van on site and were questioning the person responsibile for the bumper knock - at least 40 French police were there. A co-worker, I was with, turned to me and said: "we're lucky the are not smart".

    Now we know that the CIA are not smart despite their gigantic budget and gigantic number of employees and "hired contract killers". We know they blew 9/11 - duh.... 30 people taking flying lessons and only learning to take off and not too land....duh. What's next?

    No wonder there are so many conspiracy theories flying around (that I don't believe in).

  52. 2600? Like my favorite magazine by qsqueeq · · Score: 1

    I knew it! http://www.2600.com/ ;)

  53. I call TROLL on you by lheal · · Score: 1

    Or you've fallen for a hoax. "Quiet" and "Programming" are two spelling errors that you've corrected but not noted. Also, "Operator's" has an apostrophe.

    Poor spell checking is a dead giveaway.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  54. IT by kb1ikn · · Score: 0

    yeah their IT guy (in India) is gonna hear about this on Monday.

  55. Oh so the government isn't secret enough? by MrSoundAndVision · · Score: 0

    This is a dangerous criticism of the government and more specifically it's central intelligence service. Not that I think that the identities of covert CIA operatives should be exposed, endangering the lives of these people. But I'd rather not the government have too many more secret facilities thank you.

  56. Similar story in France a few years ago by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

    A satirical newspaper was able to expose a good part of the COs working in covert agencies. They all had studied in the same military academy (Saint Cyr, eq. West Point) and in order to have reunions sometimes they were listed in the alumni directory as belonging to bogus units...the existence of which being quite easy to check.

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal
  57. Curious about the CIA? Read these books! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For anyone who is really interested in what the CIA does can read plenty about them. I think it is fair to say that it is kind of like a global covert police force for the US Elite. The CIA supports terrorism, US dollar hegemony, the global drug trade, US oil domination, assassinations, death squads, and who knows what else. Contrary to what most people believe, it does function in a domestic fashion. Also it appears that there is another group that is somewhat CIA, but has more plausible deniability called The Enterprise created under the former director (and Reagan campaign manager) William Casey.

    Dark Alliance
    Gold Warriors
    Inside the Company: CIA Diary
    Thy Will Be Done, The Conquest of the Amazon
    The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush
    The Outlaw Bank
    Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
    Plausible Denial
    Cocaine Politics
    The Politics of Heroin
    The Iran-Contra Connection
    Crossing the Rubicon
    The Haunting of America
    Secret Agenda
    Killing Hope
    JFK by Fletcher Prouty
    The Secret Team by Fletcher Prouty
    Confessions of an Economic Hitman
    The Third Option by Ted Shackley
    Powderburns, Cocaine, Contras and the Drug War
    The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy by Turner and Christian

  58. Treason by laing · · Score: 1

    These CIA guys are people just like you and I. They happen to work for the US Government and they happen to do classified work. What possible motivation could a newspaper reporter have in uncovering covert agents, operations, and locations? The CIA is ON OUR SIDE guys.

    1. Re:Treason by Forbman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The CIA is on its own side. It is not on yours, or mine, or anyone else's necessarily. It is not even necessarily on the US government's side sometimes.

    2. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Like Bush!

    3. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The CIA is ON OUR SIDE guys."

      How true. People don't spy on you to make themselves more powerful. They do it for your own good.

      Have you thanked your jailer today?

    4. Re:Treason by joeme1 · · Score: 1

      I think this newspaper is doing a service to the CIA and the people who care about our government and want to see it do what it needs to do covertly. By showing us and these agencies that not all of their information is safely concealed it has shown that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. I'm sure the CIA knew some of its information was available on the net, but maybe lawmakers and Joe Citizen didn't. Now these lawmakers and Joe can say, "Hey, we don't want our government's information jeopardized in this way." So maybe something will get done to remove the information or secure it better.

    5. Re:Treason by laing · · Score: 1

      Nice argument. If the newspaper was really doing a "service", then why didn't it provide the information it obtained to the CIA *ONLY* so they could fix the problem and minimize the damage? Instead, substantial damage has been done by publishing what amounts to classified information.

    6. Re:Treason by Veneratio · · Score: 1

      And who in hell's name are you calling "our side" anyway? Im Dutch, not American. There IS a world beyond the USA mate. The CIA (just like any other secret agency on the planet) can pretty much cap my arse (and yours) without ever going to trial for it. And did you think you're protected from non-US secret agencies? Forget it. You give them power by allowing them to take it, and so does anyone else in any nation that has a secret service. How long until they decide they no longer need public support and completely do their own bidding instead? Provided it hasnt already come to that, of course. Oh, and naturally i'll get a "-1 Flamebait" because i dont declare the US as the Saviour-of-the-Planet in above statement. Cmon, ive got some karma left!

      --
      "Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
  59. Delete your cookies by ashpool7 · · Score: 1

    Seems to be that the "first hit is free." Delete your cookies and reload it.

  60. The article is somewhat misleading... by ChePibe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article puts up some big numbers, but lest we forget a few things:

    - The CIA is a BIG organization - it needs support personnel, etc. and they are not likely to ALL be undercover. Maintaining cover on accountants and receptionists would certainly be a big waste of resources.

    - Most CIA positions are not undercover, including most analysts

    The article admits a lot of this halfway down: "Not all of the 2,653 employees whose names were produced by the Tribune search are supposed to be working under cover. More than 160 are intelligence analysts, an occupation that is not considered a covert position, and senior CIA executives such as Tenet are included on the list."

    So, in other words, the Tribune puts up a big number that is supposed to be shocking and then, after most people stop reading, admits it's not really that big a deal. The article does state, however:

    "But an undisclosed number of those on the list--the CIA would not say how many--are covert employees, and some are known to hold jobs that could make them terrorist targets."

    There must be at least one - given the example at the top of the article - but no one says how many. The discovery that 26 people are working at Camp Peary (AKA - "The Farm" of "The Recruit" fame) is equally unimpressive, as SOMEONE must work there for support staff, and the 26 individuals discovered are likely to be support staff, not trainers. The 17 aircraft aren't particularly interesting, either, as the CIA likely operates many aircraft openly. Big organizations like the CIA cannot maintain cover on EVERYTHING, nor do they try to, as this report implies

    I'm of the opinion that this article boils down to the following:

    - The Chicago Tribune tooting its own horn
    - A cheap jab at Bush, which seems to represent "objective" journalism these days
    - Sensationalist journalism - they put up big numbers, but those numbers are unlikely to actually mean anything

    Many have jokingly said, "move along, nothing to see here". To be honest, I think those statements are accurate.

    1. Re:The article is somewhat misleading... by Mabonus · · Score: 1
      A cheap jab at Bush, which seems to represent "objective" journalism these days

      I was with you right up to that one. You managed to support all your other points, but that's the first mention of Bush I've seen in this article. Where did that come from, because right now it looks like you're just kind of randomly bashing journalists.
    2. Re:The article is somewhat misleading... by ChePibe · · Score: 1
      The article states:

      At a minimum, the CIA's seeming inability to keep its own secrets invites questions about whether the Bush administration is doing enough to shield its covert CIA operations from public scrutiny, even as the Justice Department focuses resources on a two-year investigation into whether someone in the administration broke the law by disclosing to reporters the identity of clandestine CIA operative Valerie Plame.

      The article comes across like this:

      We here at the Chicago Tribune were able uncover the names of THOUSANDS of CIA employees, almost all of whom were not working covertly! Is the Bush administration doing enough to shield overt CIA employees and extremely sloppy covert ones from discovery?

      Is this a jab at journalists? Yup. Why? Their reporting is lazy, sensationalist, and uninformed, which is quite typical of journalism these days and, in my opinion, always has been.

    3. Re:The article is somewhat misleading... by Tiro · · Score: 1
      How about this one liner:
      Another policy proposal by Bush, who seems to represent "conservative" government these days
  61. Never register again! by themadplasterer · · Score: 1

    why register when you can use other peoples registrations Go to http://www.bugmenot.com/ it works!

  62. German intelligence not much better by pdschmid · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Germany had two intelligence agents in Baghdad during the war. Their identities are fully known to the press which has tried not to reveal them. What happened?
    • Both agents were doing everything but keeping a low profile in the days before the evacuation of the German Embassy in Iraq. Apparently they had no problems mingling with the press.
    • Both had websites with pictures of their current postings. For example, one guy showed himself with his family at his new post in Australia.
    • Their websites had guestbooks. Other agents left "well concealed" messages on there. For example, one post ended with "greetings from Pullach". The CIA equivalent of that would be "greetings from Langley".
    Pretty bad...
  63. Can't get anything right? by evildogeye · · Score: 2

    They probably get lots of things right, 95% of which they will never tell us about.

  64. Whistle-blowing technique by webweave · · Score: 1

    CIA agents can't rat on thier bosses for being asked to break the law. instead they leave clues that can be used to expoes illegal and immoral activity. That kiddnapping case in the article is a good example.

    I love the quote "Dyck declined to detail the remedies "since we don't want the bad guys to know what we're fixing."" Yea right, you can still call yourselves the good guys?

  65. ReichstagFire v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given such deadly threat to National Security and Integrity, with sunken heart, in an attempt to meet the demands of millions of concernbed citizens, we have decided to shut down the Internet. Thank you for understanding and good bye.

  66. Google "is" The Company a.k.a. the CIA by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Funny
    I'm surprised nobody brought up the connection between Google and the CIA's venture capital arm In-Q-Tel? In-Q-Tel was a significant investor in Keyhole Inc.

    There are other connections between Google and the Intelligence community. Like this job ad and this.

    Got to go, the black helicopters are circling. Remember, trust no one.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    1. Re:Google "is" The Company a.k.a. the CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two organizations built around organizing information dealing with the same companies? Next, you'll tell me Kelloggs and Post are both part of the farmers conspiracy.

  67. The public's right to know.. by deacon · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Chicago Tribune on the CIA:

    The people have a right to know! And so does everyone else in the world!

    Chicago Tribune on the Danish Cartoons:

    Excerpts found by searching for "danish cartoons" in the Chicago Tribune search box. The stories themselves are not freely available.

    Stephen Hobson

    In any democracy the word "responsibility" must accompany the exercise of all our freedoms. The publication of the cartoons of Muhammad by the Danish press is just another example of someone falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater without considering...

    Ed Letchinger

    Two editors of the Daily Illini were suspended from their posts following their publication of some of the Danish cartoons, and the Tribune and most other U.S. newspapers have avoided publishing them (Metro, Feb. 15). It is surprising to me that these...

    In other words: We are being responsible by deciding what you the people don't need to see. We will make up your mind for you. Good dog.

    1. Re:The public's right to know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey moron: the Tribune did not publish the list of all the CIA agents and assets they found, just like they did not publish the cartoons. And where do you get the idea that cartoons are equivalent to a list of CIA agents? Sheesh.

  68. To: George W. Bush +1, Top Secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From: President-VICE Richard B. Cheney

    Attack Iraq. We'll make billions. Our U.S. citzens, or, rather, subjects, are illiterate and innumerate.

    Feloniously as always,

    Dick

  69. Two Known CIA Assets... Steve Jobs & George L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two Known CIA Assets... Steve Jobs & George Lucas
    Criminals. Multidimensionally.

    Being prosecuted.

    One of those damn Montauk boys,
    Shane Michael Neary (Archimedean)
    "Steve Klingsporn"

  70. the CIA needs disbanding by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

    Quite literally, the CIA has outlived its usefulness.

    It is now creating more problems than it is solving.

  71. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Funny

    There was also a secret police not allied with the Gestapo, because the watchers needed to be afraid of someone as well. These were completely secret police who answered only to Hitler and/or Goering.

    Damn. Even the Nazis understood and practiced checks & balances better than us.

    [ducking]

  72. Exactly right, but most people did not understand. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Exactly right. There was plenty of news about U.S. government support for Arab violence. It was definitely not a Secret with a big S.

    But is was, effectively, a secret. The real meaning of U.S. government support for violence was not made clear to the American people. When the CIA stopped giving money for violence, those who had been trained in violence needed jobs. All they knew how to do was be violent, and that was not a good resume for a regular job. So, they looked around for other excuses for violence. The CIA calls that "Blowback". Blowback is seen by the CIA as a good thing, because it means more jobs and money and promotions for CIA people. The taxpayer funds what is, in effect, a partial overthrow of healthy government.

    It's comparable to you working to fix your friend's computer, and you improve some problems with the computer, but while you are working on it you destroy his monitor. In any other field but secret government action, that would be seen as a failure.

    The CIA releases information in a disconnected and uninformative way and then measures the impact with polls. The idea is to be a public as possible, without actually causing a true understanding.

  73. I call DUMBASS on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dumb fuck. You're asserting that "gubbmint agents" have better spelling than other people. Dumb cocksucker.

  74. Tracking down info by phorm · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that this is one of the groups that wants to collect "your" personal info in the fight against terrorism. If they can't keep their own private business private... how much trust should I have in them with mine?

  75. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by Vreejack · · Score: 1

    That was the whole point. They stood out like elephants in the living room. No one talked about them but their presence enforced submission.

    Talking about the gestapo would cause them to pay you a visit. The FUD they generated just by _existing_ was invaluable to the Hitler regime.

    The CIA, otoh, generates FUD as well but it is all internal. WHenever any of that FUD escapes into the wild someone in the US govt gets in trouble, which seems to happen about once a year.

    --
    "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
  76. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was also a secret police not allied with the Gestapo, because the watchers needed to be afraid of someone as well. These were completely secret police who answered only to Hitler and/or Goering.

    Do you refer to Sicherheitsdienst? A "sister" organization to the Gestapo according to Wikipedia. Not secret but with the task of finding enemies in the Nazi leadership and neutralization of said people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitsdienst

  77. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The easiest place to hide is in plain sight. People you see everyday don't raise suspicions. Its impossible to be invisible, but its not hard to convince people you're too boring to investigate.

  78. The desired outcome vs. probably outcome by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately the article doesn't mention which data broker Chicago Tribune used. It would've been interesting to have quotes from the company rep explaining how they're allowed to sell CIA operatives' information online.

    The likely outcome of this is that all CIA records will quietly dissappear from the databases of many data brokers.

    The desired outcome would, of course, be making selling other people's private information illegal, but that's like asking the Pope to convert to Islam.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  79. Bugmenot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is your friend.

  80. Very Nice Resume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, having a public resume is a good way to end up exactly like the individuals listed in the article. Good effort though.

  81. failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    They knew iraq wanted to invade, they told them, they asked them

    " can we invade ? its really ours, kuwait is stealing our oil "

    and usa lady APril said, "sure we have no interests, we dont care"

    http://members.aol.com/bblum6/iraq2.htm

    25 July: Saddam Hussein was personally told by the US
    ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, in a now-famous remark, that
    "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
    disagreement with Kuwait." But she then went on to tell the
    Iraqi leader that she was concerned about his massive troop
    deployment on the Kuwaiti border in the context of his
    government's having branded Kuwait's actions as "parallel to
    military aggression".{11}

    Transcript here - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.h tml

    Photo here - http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/8a /Saddam_anf_April_.jpg

    Shes recently retired, but will not speak against her department or the govt. Basicly a suck-up.

    So the real people behind the so called bad CIA decisions are the people in power, James Baker, Bush, and
    good old Rumfseld and the rest of the NEOCONS.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  82. Hanlon's Razor by dviswa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    1. Re:Hanlon's Razor by Omaze · · Score: 1

      Addendum:

      Unless that malice carries significant financial gain with it.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
  83. what the fuck? by wwwrench · · Score: 1
    It is no forgery, as alleged of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." or actual forgeries such as those of Anne Frank, or (more recently) Hitler's diary.


    yeah exactly. The guy is implying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a forgery, and the diary of Anne Frank and Hitler are. Not to mention the link to a webpage stating that "rich international bankers has infiltrated the monetary supply systems". And the nut-job racist gets modded interesting and insightful. Nice one mods!


    There's plenty of manipulation and fear-mongering going on in this world, but you don't need Jews or conspiracy theories for that -- just watch CNNFOX.

    --

    Deconstruct the State
  84. Treason is rewarded today by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Treason isn't enough to prevent you getting another plum government job or prevent you from going into politics.

    Consider Oliver North - the guy who sold guns to Iran after it had decleared that the USA was the great satan - and then he gave the money he didn't skim off into his own pockets to a major drug dealer in Panama that later had to be removed by US military action.

    At the same time a guy was branded a traitor and became stateless for playing good chess against a Russian.

    1. Re:Treason is rewarded today by laing · · Score: 1

      I hate to feed the troll but Ollie sold spare parts for all the existing US hardware the Iranians had. Policy at the time was to keep Iran balanced with Iraq so neither side would win the war that was going on between them.

      The money from the parts sale went to (indirectly) fund the contras in Nicaragua. The contras were trying to topple the communist government there.

      All in all I'd say it was a pretty good deal (except for the fact that Congress made it illegal to aid the contras and Ollie did it anyway and the lied about it).

    2. Re:Treason is rewarded today by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The money went to Noriaga, who later had to be removed due to drug running activities. Some of the money was skimmed off by Oliver North. Government policy was to not deal with Iran or the Contras. It sounds very simple to me - paticularly taking the money for personal use. The court found him guilty of lesser crimes, and not treason. I don't see why the newspaper should be accused of treason either, hence the comment labelled as a troll (possibly becuase the person described was a criminal with connections to a political party so mentioning the name could be seen as flamebait).

    3. Re:Treason is rewarded today by proberts · · Score: 1

      LTC. North was not ever accused of skimming money. He was found guilty of taking a security fence which was provided by Gen. Seacord without cost- and that was after several attempts to get the U.S. Government to provide security after Abu Nidal threatened him.

      Paul

      --
      http://www.pauldrobertson.com
  85. Anne Frank by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1
    > or actual forgeries such as those of Anne Frank

    Go crawl back under a rock, you lying neo-Nazi vermin.

    The "Anne Frank is a forgery" lie has been around for half a century. It has been utterly debunked. In 1963, even the Nazi official who arrested her verified the truth.

    For more info, see the Wikipedia article:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank

  86. What difference does it make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Searches? CIA Employees?

    Our damn people are so stupid it does not matter; they won't care anyway. How about this one: the news media outlets spend hundreds of hours on a college girl who is bar hopping till 0430 but will not cover casualty reports from the battlefield. ...Oh well, just keep selling those tampons and deodorant; It will be over before long...

  87. The CIA IS that stupid by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    I interviewed with the CIA. It was wired to succeed and they were drooling. Then came the round when I spoke to the supposed station chief for Europe, a singularly ridiculous woman who called herself 'Beth.' She revealed that my assignment would be to work as a "diplomat," in a "consular office," attend parties and try to recruit informants from the international political, diplomatic, and business communities. I said, "I'm new to this spying business, so forgive me if this question sounds a bit odd, but isn't that rather obvious? I mean, if I were a foreign counter-intelligence service, consulates and embassies would be places I'd watch minutely." She brushed that off. Then she gave me a series of 'what-if' scenarios in which I was to demonstrate quick thinking by improvising a solution under pressure; and the scenarios were so painfully silly and the solutions so incredibly obvious, that I was embarassed for her. It was like junior highschool thinking with a mean streak. The interview concluded, thanked her, and politely told her that I was not interested in accepting a position.

    Four weeks later the woman's picture appeared on the front page of the NY times, having just been picked up by the Russians while posing as a "diplomatic officer" at a "consulate." One of the best laughs I've had in years.

    In short, the answer to your statement is that, yes, the CIA are that stupid. Not stupid in the "I want you to think that I'm stupid so that you'll stop paying attention to me" kind of way, but in the actually retarded kind of way. With a mean, psychopathic streak.

    I'm sure that's why Bush gave them the job of torturing people, because the people in the other actually somewhat competent agencies like the NSA and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) probably said A) torture is ineffective, and B) what kind of sick bastard are you, you un-American piece of crap?

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:The CIA IS that stupid by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      The problem with the CIA (like many military and intelligence organizations) is that they're more interested in hiring conformists than intelligent or innovative thinkers. Combine that tendency with an entrenched bureaucracy and you end up with a self-perpetuating culture of mental mediocrity. The CIA, FBI, etc. are *NOT* good places for those who can "think outside the box" and would likely "punish" any employees who did so regularly.

      In other words, their culture makes them very good at routine investigations and "status quo" day-to-day operations but very bad at anything outside the norm or anything which presents a new challenge.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  88. Heckuva Job by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    That's why George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence ("head spook"), got the Medal of Freedom award from George Bush.

    When you represent corporate interests, your number one interest in the government is making it unable to protect people from your corporate operations. The "antigovernment party" controlling the government is like the cat party controlling the mouse guild.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  89. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had undercover operatives in the Gestapo and other government agencies, hence the "secret" part.

  90. Obligatory Dr. Strangelove quote: by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Funny
    Russian Ambassador DeSadeski: "There are those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. And at the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we'd been spending on defense in a single year. But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap."

    President Muffley: "This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that."

    DeSadeski: "Our source was the New York Times."

  91. Re:failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuw by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    That's an AOL WEB site and a conspiracy theorist WEB site. Might you have something a little less biased?

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  92. The public's right to know -vs- editorial control by Nonesuch · · Score: 1
    That's the definition of "editorial control", deciding what gets published. I think the Tribune is being consistent here.

    In the cases of both the danish cartoons and the CIA records, the paper published the facts around the issue, but not the actual cartoons, nor the actual operatives names and addresses.

    Regarding the cartoons, I recall reading a half page editorial on why exactly the Tribune chose to refrain from printing the cartoons. IIRC, they had previously printed the URLs of web sites where the cartoons could be found online, but decided that reproducing the actual 'toons would be in bad taste. Similar justification was provided by the New York Times, etc.

    That, and they didn't want to be bombed by the extremist arm of the "religion of peace", not that anybody will ever admit that in print.

  93. The CIA gave bin Laden things he could not buy. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article you cited: "... all available evidence suggests that bin Laden was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA."

    That is my understanding, after considerable reading. AND... it is not relevant.

    Osama bin Laden did not need money or arms. He had millions of dollars of his own money; he was extremely wealthy and had connections with other extremely wealthy people who wanted to fund his ideas.

    Here's part of what the CIA gave bin Laden, perhaps completely indirectly:

    A deep understanding of how to be an efficient terrorist: What bin Laden needed was the CIA's manuals that tell how to be a terrorist. There was a news story about an Arab terrorist manual that had been found, and some of the text was quoted. The U.S. government stopped the quoting. However, before it was stopped, it was completely obvious that the original language of the terrorist manual was certainly not Arab and it seemed obvious to me that it was American English.

    Jobless people trained in violence: When the U.S. government's largely secret support for aggression against Russia was finished, all those trained in violence and CIA terrorist methods needed work. Their resumes did not support getting jobs as rug merchants; all they knew was violence. That was the CIA's second biggest contribution to OBL: A huge group of people trained in and looking for violence.

    Followers who hated U.S. government interference and violence: Other incidents of what the CIA calls "Blowback" provided strong reasons to hate U.S. government intervention. Also, many people in the U.S. government have a difficult time understanding this, but Arabs don't like to be killed.

    A huge cache of modern missiles and explosives: Sure, maybe there was never a formal transfer of weapons to OBL, with contracts signed and handshakes, but a huge number of weapons and a huge amount of weapons material were left, and became available to OBL.

    Watch a movie about 9/11:

    No evidence of body part of Arabs was ever found. Some of the "Arab terrorists" named by the U.S. government later were found to be alive and working in Arab countries.

    World Trade Center building 7 fell in exactly the same way as WTC 1 and 2, and it was NOT hit by an airplane. ALL the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions.

    Watch the interesting movie Loose Change. It is a work in progress, but already very informative.

  94. Finding an agent by gizmo_mathboy · · Score: 1

    Another article by Larry Johnson about how thin the Chicago Tribune article is.

    Sure once you are told who might be a CIA agent you can find lots of information about them on the web. However, can you determine that a person is an agent from information on the web?

    That is really the question.

  95. Bureaucracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what it's called and it can and will happily exist in both government and private sides. How to successfully avoid it is one of life's great mysteries.

  96. Re:"the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities by hey! · · Score: 1
    Actually, there needs to be a meta-Godwin's law:

    As the length of a thread approaches infinity, the ratio of topical posts to those discussing the applicabilicability of Godwin's law approaches zero.
    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  97. Not surprising at all by hey! · · Score: 1

    The reason is that information is what you get when you compare one piece of data in the light of another, independent piece of data. In the right circumstances, a very small and by itself uninformative piece of data can be just the right piece you need. Of course it helps to have a knack for this sort of thing.

    I've personally in several cases satisfied myself that with a little effort is not difficult at all to find people who don't want to be found or identify people who don't want to be identified, by piecing together bits of data from free public database. If you're willing to spend a small amount of money, it becomes childlishly simple.

    The power of the Internet search engine is to sift though a vast body of individually uniformative facts; combine this with services like people finder services and on-line credit reports, and what you have amounts to the end of privacy and anonymity. The only thing which protects most of us is how uniteresting we are.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  98. For the record by bermudatriangleoflov · · Score: 0

    Just for the record here..CIA agents are civilians who are paid informants for the CIA and can be a national of any country other than the United States. CIA officers are actual employees of the CIA and are often noc officers or para military officers.

  99. "Magically detected" ? by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    by democrats who believed that he should have magically detected the 9/11 plot

    Nice try. There was no magic required. In fact, the government HAD detected the 9/11 plot (August PDB, anyone?). Not to mention the various sniffs the FBI had about the eventual hijackers studying takeoffs but not landings, etc. The problem was that Bush was more interested in continuing his vacation than responding to the PDB, and various of his cronies appointed to other high positions didn't see fit to follow up on other warnings.

    Sean

    1. Re:"Magically detected" ? by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Bullshit and you know it. You also know that the PDB talked about plans to attack the US, not fly planes into US buildings. You ignore that (as usual) in a effort to make a cheap political point.

      I suppose if you repeat a lie unchallanged enough, it might eventually be written in history that way, but the key there is unchallanged. This is intellectually dishonest. If you want to debate, stick to the facts.

  100. Valerie Plame Leaker now safe by NumerusSpy · · Score: 1

    Because they can now prove that the data about her profession was in the public domain the whole time. This smells very fishy to me.

    --
    There they are a conga line of suck holes. On the conservative side of Australian politics. - Mark Latham
  101. You're kidding, right? by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

    What was so magical about the 6 August 2001 President Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"?

    Nothing short of magic could have enabled that illiterate incompetent imbecille to read his PDB.