Slashdot Mirror
Top Secret America
mahiskali writes "The Washington Post published an immense interactive website today, detailing the companies and government agencies currently doing top secret work in the United States. Everything from counter-IED operations to human intelligence is touched upon. Citing various interviews with 'super users' and through exhaustive analysis of public records for over two years, this interactive site allows users to peer into the guarded world of top secret intelligence. With more than 854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance, has the defense and intelligence world grown too big, too fast? Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11? How can we judge the success of these programs, when much of it will never be known by the general public?"
"Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?"
The day after 9/11 I found a rock. I've kept this rock with me every day since then. Could it be more that this rock prevents terrorism?
Will people ever learn that correlation does not imply causation?
Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
That number mey be exaggerated; it's possible it includes me, as I held a TS clearance in the USAF almost 40 years ago. It may even be likely. Just because a person holds a clearance doesn't mean they actually know anything, even with a clearance you're only briefed on a "need to know" basis. If it does include me, it includes anyone who was ever stationed at Utapao, Thailand during the Vietnam war, since some secret recon gear was there. It also likely includes anyone who was ever stationed at a SAC base.
If this is so, 854k people doesn't seem quite so outrageous; it may sinply be the people still living who were investigated, cleared, and trained (you have to get training to get a TS clearance).
Free Martian Whores!
Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
Is the submitter a complete idiot? remember those little letters full of Anthrax much?
Why do people keep saying this? its a completely weird oversight, especially as it was never credibly settled.
The site statistics and information are incredibly misleading. Simply because 1m hold TS clearance, or the right to gain TS clearance for an SCI level job, does not mean 1m people are actively working in the industry.
With so many contractors such as Lockheed, CSC, OAO, etc... you have thousands which may hold clearance but they are not at the moment on a project. When I was working for CSC, in the span of a few years, I was on a dozen different projects. Some non-classified, some were. Not all were for the Gov't. I still had to hold a clearance.
Some were for the Gov't but totally benign in terms of what was worked on.
There is a massive amount of infrastructure to run all Gov't ops, bases, local and state Gov't. Even if you want to be a janitor in many places, you have to qualify for a clearance.
If you want to run fiber or copper cabling between buildings which house classified projects, you need to have a clearance.
To be a receptionist at many facilities, you need to have a clearance.
The information leads the reader to think that all 1m with TS clearance are working at the moment on nefarious projects for an evil government. While the reality is, most are simply support staff doing work that if it were any other customer, would be easily overlooked and thought down on.
This is just another Washington Post scaremongering article by someone who makes their living off of the people she is claiming are too many in number.
For most Americans, the day after 9/11 they found Iraq.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Huge terrorist plots bringing down buildings are rare. The PETN bomber, for example, needed a steel detonator that could compress a sizable charge of PETN significantly, otherwise PETN just burns; but getting that kind of thing into airport security is hard, even pre-9/11, since they're bulky and steel and complex and obviously bombs. Taking over a plane is hard, too; seriously, box cutters aren't necessary when you can turn a shoe lace into a strangling tool and take a stewardess hostage.
Really, they were rare before 9/11; remember the Oklahoma thing, ad the 2 prior attempts on the new york trade centers. They're rare now.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
They're kind of like the TSA... the "war on terrorism" provided an excuse for a grandstanding president with little intelligence to look like a "great statesman" by creating more, bigger government agencies that will have limited usefulness and will never shrink on their own. After all, their creation was an opportunity for elected officials to both appear to be "doing something" about terrorism and to spend a lot of money on their constituents, helping ensure their re-election.
It's a natural human impulse to think "more is better" or "bigger is better"... I'm starting to think it's biologically rooted. At any rate, combining all the intelligence agencies into one big organization only works if all the people involved are egoless, if they all are willing to work together, and if they all don't care if they have a job tomorrow. Most people can't do this, and the folks in charge at these agencies are the ones least likely to be able to do so, especially since many of them are government appointed or union.
The worst part is that many of the people involved with these efforts truly believe that they are doing the Right Thing, that they are the best defense against "another 9/11" and that they must be allowed to continue regardless of whether the US has the money or whether our existing laws stand in their way.
Submitted for your consideration: Which was worse for our country... the 9/11 attack and the aftermath, or the wars, restrictions, loss of freedoms, and problems created by our own government in response to it?
I never believed that 9/11 was anything but a horrible crime. No less than that, but certainly no more than that...
PS: Taco, this beta release of the comments editing software needs finishing...
There have been numerous terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, two successful (e.g., Fort Hood, Little Rock) and the rest foiled only by the attackers' own incompetence (e.g., Shoebomber, Pantybomber, Times Square).
Worse, if the latest research (Warning: PDF research paper) on journalist standards at "credible" newspapers like Washington Post/NYT is any indication, we can't even trust anything that isn't secret to be reported correctly inside "Top Secret America". Sad, very sad, but at least the rapidly growing internet journalism is showing them up...
There has been no 9/11 since 9/11 BUT there also was no 9/11 BEFORE 9/11
The point is, terrorists are NOT like regular soldiers who are expected to keep up a steady attack to defeat the enemey. All a terrorist has to do is create terror. As long as you are afraid of a terrorist, the terrorist has done his job.
Or to turn the roles around, partisans who fought the germans were NOT judged on the number of germans they killed but on how many german soldiers they kept away from the front lines. The allies played this game to great effect, weakening the german army by forcing them to fight on all fronts at the same time. Every soldier that had to patrol "safe" ground was a soldier not fighting the allies. That is PART of the reason for city bombardments, every AA gun defending cities was not blowing up tanks.
So, how have terrorist managed to affect the US BEFORE 9/11 and AFTER 9/11?
There have been terror attacks before including on US targets, but the average US citizen failed to be afraid of them... well except for celebs being afraid to fly to europe from time to time.
Post 9/11 the average US citizen, or at least the people who claim to speak for them, have become afraid. Job done as far as the terrorists are concerned. No succesful new attacks are needed. They might even be counter productive. Shoe bomber and the nigerian just harm the cause because they look silly and you might get the Israel effect, were the population doesn't care anymore and just votes to have muslims shot on sight (move to far right in Israely politics). Last thing the terrorists want is to really piss of the US to the point that nukes start flying. Turn the desert to glass would solve the whole problem in one go.
To many attacks and terror looses its meaning, people just demand vengeance. See the total failure of city bombings in europe to demoralize the public. Nukes were needed in Japan to achieve it. 8 million vietnamese citizens killed by the US and the US still lost that war. Terror is overrated in volume. Small attacks that are rare but people still think could happen any moment are scary.
Think Doom 3. Yeah yeah, lights go out, I turn around and BOOM BOOM, dead enemy. Yawn.
There have been failed and successful attack before 9/11 and after. Most likely all the security isn't changing the numbers in any real way.
And it doesn't have to be in the US. If the madrid bombings stopped US citizens from travelling abroad: Mission accomplished.
That is way a handful of terrorists/freedom fighters can tie up a large army... and why armies fighting them often resort to killing civilians in retribution.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Terror attacks will come again from other sources. It doesn't matter how much money you spend. Maybe if you spend enough to create the situation that existed in former East Germany. But do anybody really want to go there?
And are all these measures able to take care of a terrorist like the Una Bomber anyway?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Actually, all this focus on "it must have worked because there were no attacks after" ignores a crucial point: there haven't actually been foreign terror attacks in the USA _before_ 9/11 for a very long time. You know, _before_ all those idiotic constitution violations in the name of security.
Even looking at it dispassionately, I'd want basically to see someone disprove the null hypothesis if they sell me some miracle solution for anything. What is the situation with and _without_ their miracle cure? The before and after?
The last major terror attack _before_ 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, in 1995. (It also wasn't done by islamists, arabs, heathens, illegal immigrants, or the other scarecrows, but by two all-American nutters with a crazy right wing agenda. And I don't mean "right wing" as in "nazi", but the kind that goes "OMG, government is evil, gun control is evil, law enforcement is evil, load your guns and run for the hills!!!eleventeen")
The only things happening in between, and most of the stuff before 1995 too, were attacks abroad, which still haven't been stopped by the USA's giving up civil rights to stop the terrorists.
The main major terror show before that was the unabomber, who pretty much was the main show for the USA between 1978 and 1995, though not immediately and only managing to cause 3 fatalities. (And again it actually was a lone nutter who had no accomplices, belonged to no organization, and hadn't even told anyone about it. And he was a third-generation American at that. So neither much to infiltrate there, nor any profiling that would have helped.)
Look, when talking about events that rare, making a big fuss out of a short interval without them is stupid. (Although it's also false that there were none afterwards.)
I'm given the mental image of a couple of peasants who discover an elephant run away from a circus on their land. So they make up a stupid and inconvenient ritual for keeping elephants away, and unsurprisingly they never see an elephant on their land for 9 years straight. So they conclude that the ritual obviously works, and they must keep doing it every day. But the fact that they had also never seen an elephant on their land _before_ that ritual even existed, is lost on them.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
And there are those that would use this information to conclude that the best approach is to just watch Fox News and read right-wing blogs because you can't trust anything in the big liberal newspapers.
Here's a news flash: Newspapers have never been fully trustworthy. You think the Hearst papers were being honest in the way they dealt with the early part of the 20th century? You believe the Wall Street Journal was being impartial when they reported on the Viet Nam War?
There has never been a time when you can accept news from any source without taking the source itself into account. Critical thinking has always been necessary.
Yet, even with their faults and stumbling efforts at transparency through the years, when the Washington Post published the Pentagon Papers despite their being classified, they allowed citizens to make more informed decisions about the behavior of their government. When the NYT revealed the CIA assassinations in South America and elsewhere, should they have held those stories back because there had been scandals where certain reporters had fabricated stories?
We'll never have a fully independent and reliable press in the US until they are subsidized by the government. Yes, you read that correctly. SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The same way newspapers were subsidized by the government in the period immediately following the ratification of the US Constitution. Did you know that the Founding Fathers approved government subsidized for a free press? That's exactly what the early postal subsidies were. At a time when the biggest operating expense of most newspapers was their distribution, the Founding Fathers, Madison, Jefferson, et al, subsidized their delivery via US Post. That's how important they believed the Press was to our existence as a free people.
Now you would say that the solution is to do away with any standards because the national press can't keep those standards, and get all our news from bloggers. You may not have noticed by some of the most reliable online journalists ARE print journalists. The same guys who write the stories in the papers are writing them online, only online we have absolutely no way of knowing where their funding is coming from. That's not a recipe for a reliable Press.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I shall point out to you that you wrote your post in English. No need to thank my country or my ancestors for that, you're welcome! Or perhaps you are of the sort that would prefer the world to speak German?
Russia is probably owed as much for the defeat of the Nazis as the Americans.
I shall also point out that Islam seeks power and money, and that I am not sure one would find either in any of the "countries" you listed.
Islam seeks submission to God. That's what the word Islam means. People seek power and money. For instance, Saudi Arabia is a theocracy, but it's a US Ally, because it's leaders seek money and power. (Remember GW Bush holding hands with the Saudi Crown Prince?)
If you wanted to knock terrorism into last century, you'd have to do two things: leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and form a new Manhattan style project to harvest energy directly to the sun to end our oil addiction. Of course, those things are nearly impossible for the US to do, since it only seeks power and money.
Here you go.
Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism coordinator at the time, has revealed details of a meeting the day after the attacks during which officials considered the US response. Already, he said, they were certain al-Qa'ida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Mr Clarke said. "We all said, 'No, no, al-Qa'ida is in Afghanistan.'"
But Mr Clarke, who is expected to testify on Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Mr Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq." A spokesman for Mr Rumsfeld last night said he could not comment immediately.
Yes, becasue the BBC never puts out any stories critical of the British government.
Who do you think has more fiscal power in the US - the government, or the businesses? Now say a paper wants to run a story that would make it's biggest advertiser look bad - do you think the story will run? You won't run into that if a paper isn't relying on advertising dollars to keep it running.
"But this one goes to 11!"
We'll never have a fully independent and reliable press in the US until they are subsidized by the government. Yes, you read that correctly. SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
That's all it takes? So Pravda was fully independent and reliable because it was subsidized by the government? What if I decide to publish a newspaper promoting communist/fascist/racist or whatever unpopular views? Will I get the subsidy as well? Who decides, and by what criteria, which newspapers will be the good boys who get the subsidy and a pat on the head by the government and which ones don't? The truth is the exact opposite of what you said. It is impossible to have free and independent press if it receives even one penny from the government.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Much of the anti-terrorist hysteria reminds me of the tiger repelling rock. The fact is that terrorist attacks were few and far between before 9/11 and probably would have remained so after. The tactics used on 9/11 didn't even remain effective for the entire duration of the attack simply due to the civilian response. Evidence suggests that it wouldn't have been effective at all but for the bad advice from our government that the first few plane's worth of passengers followed.
Locks on cockpit doors make sense, and no longer telling civilians that passivity works make sense. The rest including the war on clean hair and proper hydration as well as the color coded chart telling us how terrified to be need to be scrapped.
It's too bad all the airport security crap can't be re-purposed as medical scanners so we could address an actual problem (expensive healthcare) that actually causes people to die.
Most of the stuff is marked top secret so they can severely punish anyone who points out that they're naked.