Slashdot Mirror


Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

seven of five writes One man is dead and another severely injured after a shootout at one of the main gates of the National Security Agency located at Fort Meade, Maryland. Two men dressed as women attempted to 'penetrate' the entry point with their vehicle when a shootout occurred, officials said. The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.

308 comments

  1. Why is penetration in quotes? by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being dressed as women has nothing to do with putting 'penetration' in quotes, unless there is some sort of joke I'm missing. Why is it in quotes?

    1. Re:Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The two men dressed as women were attempting to "penetrate" the "entry point" in their car outside the NSA. When the agents realized they weren't watching public lesbian action, a "shoot out" occurred.

    2. Re:Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it the rear entry point?

    3. Re:Why is penetration in quotes? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Possibly because it's the operative word of a quote.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Why is penetration in quotes? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1, Informative

      Being dressed as women has nothing to do with putting 'penetration' in quotes, unless there is some sort of joke I'm missing. Why is it in quotes?

      Because it's not clear from the statement what exactly took place. Did they bump a barricade lightly while trying to peacefully leave the checkpoint, and in turn get pursued by the guards and shot to death despite being unarmed and showing no actual malice? We will have to wait for more details to emerge.

    5. Re: Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the police supposed to do when these people keep escalating these situations again and again? The police didn't shoot right away in the cases listed. They clearly showed great restraint, given the provocation that they were repeatedly subjected to.

      And why does one need to have a gun in order to be considered ÂarmedÂ? Physical strength and vehicles can be used as weapons that are just as deadly as guns can be. Somebody in control of such things is just as armed as somebody with a gun.

    6. Re: Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And why does one need to have a gun in order to be considered ÂarmedÂ? Physical strength and vehicles can be used as weapons that are just as deadly as guns can be. Somebody in control of such things is just as armed as somebody with a gun."

      It doesn't. Strictly speaking, armed means anything other than bare knuckles. A stick or a shiv will do to get you an armed robbery charge in some jurisdictions.

    7. Re: Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How was history rewritten? Granted some 'colorful' words were added but it was correctly written what happen in Ferguson.

    8. Re:Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No malice? What do you call driving away after knocking someone down with your car?

    9. Re: Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Confusion", apparently. When you do it again and again, it's still just "confusion".

    10. Re: Why is penetration in quotes? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      That's why you always go with pocket sand.

    11. Re: Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, saying that Michael Brown "roughed up the clerk" definitely seems to be rewriting history. Also asserting that these people tried to run down police officers and security personnel seems to be inferring details that aren't in the story. Do you have a source.

    12. Re: Why is penetration in quotes? by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, saying that Michael Brown "roughed up the clerk" definitely seems to be rewriting history.

      Well, thanks to the omnipresent (and privacy-invading) video-taping, we know, he really did rough-up the clerk. Without the video, who could've guessed the gentle momma boy could've hurt a fly on his way out of a convenience store with stolen goods?..

      Yes, someone in this thread is attempting to rewrite history... I guess, I'm a KKK too now...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:Why is penetration in quotes? by mi · · Score: 1, Troll

      Though I agree with you on the matter of Michael Brown, your attempt to conflate him with Miriam Carey needs to be countered.

      Unlike Mr. Brown, who attacked the sole officer present. Although her (successful) attempt to drive through a fence-segment placed in front of her car may be considered an attack on the man, who placed it there, the multiple officers shooting her later had no reasons to fear for their lives, when they opened fire — and that's important.

      Officer Wilson acted in self-defense shooting Mr. Brown. There was no reason for Secret Service et al. to kill Ms. Carey — though they did have ample reasons to want to arrest her...

      That said, I find it strange, that her race was not immediately known — and that her death did not cause any "Black lives matter" protests. In fact, I didn't know, she was Black until I opened the above-posted link. I guess, there just was no need at the time to trump-up the police's supposed "racism" — or, maybe, the Federal officers reporting to Barack Obama and Eric Holder just can not be "racist" no matter who they kill any why...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    14. Re:Why is penetration in quotes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      April Fool ?!

  2. Running through the six with my woes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Running through the six with my woes!

  3. Ballsy, but stupid ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So in some abstract sense I can see why the NSA could be considered a valid target in some contexts.

    But, honestly, trying to gate crash an Army base and then getting into a shooting match with the guards ... well, that's a special kind of stupid.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to hear of any "shoot out" or "shooting match" in this incident (both parties shooting being essential for such a label).
      In no report I have read, had the occupants of the car shot at anyone. Seems like further evidence that the NSA believes it can do *whatever* it wants to any peasant that puts a toe out of line. I question whether lethal force was necessary in this case.

    2. Re: Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed lube always helps with penetration.

    3. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by timholman · · Score: 5, Informative

      But, honestly, trying to gate crash an Army base and then getting into a shooting match with the guards ... well, that's a special kind of stupid.

      Having visited the NSA facility myself many years ago, it is incredibly stupid. The military guards at the NSA are extremely alert, extremely competent, and very well armed. They will not hesitate to point a gun in your direction, or open fire if you fail to immediately comply with their orders.

      They are not your typical security guards or your typical police. They are a level above that, and you do not want to mess with them.

    4. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems like further evidence that the NSA believes it can do *whatever* it wants to any peasant that puts a toe out of line. I question whether lethal force was necessary in this case.

      While true that apparently the gate crashers didn't shoot anybody

      1) This wasn't the NSA, directly. It was the US Army guards from what I can tell.
      2) If you try to crash a gate guarded by any Army, I think you should reasonably conclude you might get shot

      I dislike the NSA as much as any nerd, but by the time you're talking about the people who guard military bases and other secure compounds you kind of need to understand these guys are deployed under a set of orders which says "we'll be polite as long as that is possible, and then we'll be significantly less so".

      Maybe you think the armed guards on a military base should say please and thank you and be friendly, but there's usually big giant signs that say "do not taunt the lions, they will bite".

      It's hard not to see getting shot as a completely logical outcome of what happened.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes but they shouldn't be, protecting secrets shouldn't be more important than protecting citizens.

    6. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently not that hard to think that this is how it should be?

    7. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who's never tried to steal a jet at an army barracks in GTAV.

    8. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur. I visited family at Ft. Meade last year and was warned not to go near the NSA entrance. Of course I missed the exit and got lost thanks to my GPS and wound up near the gate.

      The signs there make it quite clear: if you proceed, you will be arrested (not ticketed). If you continue, you will be shot.

      Almost sounds like a dry-run to gauge response time and level. If that's the case, then someone got their answer.

    9. Re: Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huh? They were protecting citizens on the other side of gate in the big buildings were they work.

    10. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes but they shouldn't be, protecting secrets shouldn't be more important than protecting citizens.

      There comes a point where what you are doing is telegraphing that you are no ordinary citizen doing ordinary things.

      Approaching that gate with the big barricade, armed guards, and the huge sign which says "this isn't your usual place, and it isn't under the usual rules ... keep the hell out", and then deciding you're ramming it anyway? Well, as I said, that's a special kind of stupid.

      It isn't like these guys went trigger happy and went after someone who was doing nothing at all. Trying to drive through a military check point on a military base sends a specific enough signal that I think to expect to NOT get shot in that context makes you an idiot.

      Ramming gates on a military base isn't something you can reasonably expect to fall under the domain of things you can do without Really Fucking Bad Consequences.

      I'm among the first to complain about government over-reach. But fucking with armed military personnel under strict orders to keep everybody out? Definitely not that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have forgotten, but they haven't, that these secrets are a large part of protecting citizens. They're not doing it just for the fuck of it or the power trip. Start reading intelligence intercepts and you'll quickly become a right-wing nutjob. I was fairly liberal until I had to read the president's daily intelligence summary. The world is a shitty, shitty place, and there's a reason that a liberal idealist became very conservative and old after 2 years as president.

    12. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by ralphsiegler · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight, you think people should be able to use their car as weapon against the gate of a federal military facility, and not get shot? Is that the soft and gentle world between your ears?

    13. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's an Army base with 95 units from all branches of the military and over 10,000 active military personnel. That the NSA also happens to have its HQ there really doesn't matter when it comes to determining the appropriate response. If you decide to literally crash the gates at an active and in-use military base, most would find "Open fire!" to be a perfectly reasonable response. People don't ram military gates so that they can carry on a civil discourse with the folks behind them.

    14. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Bovius · · Score: 1

      Magnificent comment. Would that I could mod you up past +5.

    15. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not taunt the happy fun ball.

    16. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heretic!!!! burn the anti-american commie/chinese heretic!!

    17. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled, I hope these shooters died painfully if they were doing it as a political statement. This will only garner sympathy for the NSA, will make NSA staff more certain that they're the "good guys" in a world full of bad guys, and will distract from valid criticisms against global spying. Violence is the last refuge of desperate men, and there's no reason for those opposed to big brother to be desperate. Public paranoia about terrorism, which allowed them to justify the spying, is waning slowly. Political opposition to the spying is growing as the spying community makes missteps like spying on senators. And younger generations don't seem too fond of the war on privacy.

      Going all Rambo is a good way to threaten to reverse that momentum.

    18. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    19. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was fairly liberal until I had to read the president's daily intelligence summary

      And how did you get ahold of that, exactly? Are you the President?

    20. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Going all Rambo is a good way to threaten to reverse that momentum.

      Cue the obvious conspiracy theory.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..according to them and apparently you, who might be them or just some naive sympathiser of authorities. Is there some reason to trust that statement?

    22. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      They were trying to get out, not in, according to the apparently very lightly read article...

    23. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 3, Informative

      Reminds me of the time in the mid-70's when we were going from Boulder to Arvada via the road south to Golden and mistakenly turned at the entrance to Rocky Flats (where the "triggers" for nukes were made). We pulled up to the security shack and the guard politely told us that we needed to back up, turn around, go back to the highway and take the next turn. We asked if we could pull forward a few feet and make a u-turn around the guard shack and he said that if we moved forward, he'd have to shoot us. We kindly thanked him for his assistance, backed up, turned around and got the hell out of there.

    24. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote the summary:
      "Two men dressed as women attempted to 'penetrate' the entry point with their vehicle when a shootout occurred, officials said."

      Again:
      you: "I have yet to hear of any "shoot out" or "shooting match" in this incident (both parties shooting being essential for such a label)."
      summary: "shootout"

    25. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm saying is that death penalty should happen as a last resort, not a first line of defense. The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested. If the people in the car shoot at anybody or even wave around a gun, then by all means shoot the bastards dead. But simply driving past a checkpoint is not grounds to execute someone. You'll rue to day in America when you allow any idiot with a badge shoot anyone for any reason because ... reasons... and "national security"(tm), whenever they feel like it. You have due process for a reason - learn to use it.

    26. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Except for the guards at Area 51 - the outer perimeter guards there get so many UFO conspiracy theorists trying to breach the defences, they are very reluctant to use lethal force. No point killing UFO nuts, they aren't harming anyone. It's something of a badge of honor for a UFO nut to be able to claim they've actually stood upon the soil of Area 51 - for the few seconds it takes for the guards to catch up.

    27. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 0

      Even people who try to ram the gates of a federal military facility still deserve their right to a fair trial. Shooting should be reserved only for those cases in which someone poses an immediate and obvious danger to others and cannot be incapacitated any other way - and that doesn't include a danger to property.

    28. Re: Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very much a fact. See how they facilitated more and more comint spying in australia and canada recently. You can order this kind of service from your friendly Saudi Allies.

      Just look who crashed into WTC. Then look how they threw the dice to punish sombody completely innocent "for" that. This is a wicked world of perverts and NSA are top-of-cake perverts.

      Their last ounce of honor was preserved by people like Binney, Snowden and Manning. Out of 500k perverts, in the order of 10 displayed repentance.

    29. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary is typical slashdot. The actual news stories of the event say no such thing.

    30. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested.

      This isn't Hollywood. That's a course of action that has pretty good odds of resulting in the people attempting to do the arrest injured or killed.

      You'll rue to day in America when you allow any idiot with a badge shoot anyone for any reason

      This isn't "any reason." This is attempting to ram the gate at a secure checkpoint, where the use of deadly force is expected.

      I'm not willing to risk the lives of law enforcement or soldiers in order to try to spare people who are apparently too stupid to live.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    31. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You mean the article that has the headline "One shot dead at Fort Meade after trying to enter NSA gate" and the second paragraph describing what happened says ""Shortly before 9:00 AM today, a vehicle containing two individuals attempted an unauthorized entry at a National Security Agency gate," (emphasis mine). That article?

      While it may have been true that they were overall trying to get off the base, their attempt at entry to the NSA area is what got them shot at. It was "NSA police on the scene fired on the vehicle when it accelerated toward a police car,", i.e., using their vehicle as a weapon, that got them shot.

      People who get lost trying to leave a military base (dressed in drag for some reason, it seems) should not ignore security when they approach a gate that has armed guards. That is, as another poster puts it, monumental stupid. And people who are just "lost" won't try to ram a police car just for fun.

    32. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's moot. The military do armed incursion, act as the threat behind coercion but definitely don't do civil discourse.

    33. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by tburkhol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I'm saying is that death penalty should happen as a last resort, not a first line of defense. The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested

      The first line of defense is the stop sign. The second line of defense is the guards yelling "Stop!" The third line of defense is a gate. The fourth line of defense, in this case, was a pair of parked police cars that the SUV (reportedly) rammed through.

      Guards discharging their weapons was decidedly not the "first line of defense." I'm not sure what else could reasonably have been done in short enough time, to stop a vehicle with demonstrated willingness to perpetrate violence, but ramming through the parked cars seems like pretty good justification for extreme measures.

    34. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This will only garner sympathy for the NSA, will make NSA staff more certain that they're the "good guys" in a world full of bad guys, and will distract from valid criticisms against global spying."

      And that's exactly why this may well be a 'black flag' operation by suicide NSA operatives, or hapless petty criminals under NSA mind-control [continued page 956]

    35. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Heck, state law in a lot of states allows common civilians to use deadly force in an encounter like this, much less the military.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    36. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled, I hope these shooters died painfully if they were doing it as a political statement."
      Yea and since both statements are pretty much crazy we can now dismiss you.

      To hope for someone to die painfully in this case is unethical at best. These people had to be stopped. The best result would have been for no one to be injured but to seek others to die painfully is nothing but revenge and in this case unwarranted.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    37. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

      We can even take this one step up. The gate crashers come up to a security checkpoint, and when asked routine questions, they accelerate off and ram a marked car with security personnel in it. Any armed security guard, witnessing a clearly hostile vehicle employing lethal force (i.e. trying to ram a coworker) in order to breech a secure perimeter, would probably open fire at that point, not just military or police.

    38. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I gather from news reports that they not only rammed the gate but security cars when less than lethal attempts to subdue them were being tried. But otherwise i agree with you with the exception of reasonable. Any other way needs to be reasonable enough to not cause extreme risk to someone's life. When that is present, lethal force is warranted whether it is obvious or not.

    39. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you think the armed guards on a military base should say please and thank you and be friendly, but there's usually big giant signs that say "do not taunt the lions, they will bite".

      It's hard not to see getting shot as a completely logical outcome of what happened.

      I work on a USAF base. Everyday I have to drive through a checkpoint/show ID to get to work. Typically the base is at DEFCON Alpha, though sometimes we are briefly raised to BRAVO or CHARLIE or DELTA (usually for training purposes). The guys at the checkpoint are really nice and professional; even if a motorist enters the gate by accident, they will be polite when redirecting them appropriately. That being said, the guards do have the means to stop you, if the need should arise. And they won't hesitate to use lethal force, if it comes to that. I can only conclude that what happened at the NSA today was provoked. Whether it was stupidity or some group trying to test checkpoint defenses, I can't really say. But I'm pretty confident in saying this was not due to some trigger-happy guards going full-on commando on a couple of hapless motorists.

    40. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guards at NSA are very likely all contractors. I have mixed feelings, as the details are still vague. This makes me think about to past events. I had a group of friends that were a bit short on their ihop tab. As they left (at 3am...) the "ihop security" shot my friend from behind. The security said that he told them to stop and stood in the road, the driver drove around him. The security then from a distance unloaded several shots and killed a my friend, a passenger in the back seat. No big deal, these kids were white and one of them had a joint, so no one cares about them. This also makes me think about the guards at WRNMMC that shot at each other because one of the guards didn't like the joke another guard had made. It's not the gun that kills, it's stupid that kills.

    41. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You either did no research or are ignoring some key facts. These people were trying to leave the NSA compound, not enter it.

    42. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by ralphsiegler · · Score: 1

      Wrong, military facilities have to assume they are under enemy attack when the perps ignore instructions and moveover try to ram. They were thrice stupid and they paid the expected price. Real world is harsher than your silly notions.

    43. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Police shootings should be reserved for life and death EMERGENCIES - I have seen no proof this was one.

      Yet you think that the law enforcement officers should be willing to risk their own lives to stop them, which unless you place a very low value on their lives, tells me that you think it is an emergency after all.

      While there is of necessity some risk to their safety in the course of their job, that doesn't mean that they signed up to give up their lives needlessly just to satisfy some jackasses who don't know the difference between fantasy and reality.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    44. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Of course you're 100% correct. The GP post is typical hand wringing of many (not all) liberals who want EVERYONE to be treated "nice", even as the attackers try to kill people. It is how you get deals with Iran after all.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    45. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled

      Dismantling them would be stupid, we do have a legitimate need for SIGINT. What should happen instead is that they should be split into several agencies with increased oversight and more narrowly defined missions. At the very least the domestic and foreign capabilities should be split.

    46. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Even people who try to ram the gates of a federal military facility still deserve their right to a fair trial.

      If they live through being shot, yes.

    47. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'd rather err on the side of too little spying and play it safe. I see little in history to convince me that governments can ever successfully spy only on the bad guys and never for political reasons. If you allow the NSA to listen into only one phone call a day, I suspect they'll spend each phone call listening in on people who they identify as responsible for putting that limit on them. Dismantle the whole thing and there won't be a question of "are they still spying on us even though we told them they couldn't."

    48. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They carry around automatic weapons with the safeties off. You get exactly one warning. It's not hard to figure out how that's going to end.

      This isn't NASA, where every now and then some idiot will try to joy ride through the campus (without success). This is the NSA campus. Trying to gate crash that complex means they either have serious personal issues or not all their dogs are barking. It's basically suicide.

    49. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Hard as it may be for you to believe there are actually people out there who don't like us and mean us harm. Ceasing to watch out for that is incredibly shortsighted.

    50. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Also to add a very important point, the natural suspicion with a car trying to run through the gate at a base would be that it contains a bomb. If that is the case it is urgent that it be stopped as quickly as possible, by any means possible.

    51. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      For information, their car did ram a police vehicle that was blocking their entrance, presumably intentionally. This was not just some people intending a humorous protest in drag up at the NSA steps.

    52. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a NAVY R& base.. these guys were stupid and deserved to be shot. if you are lost on a base an pull up to a security checkpoint where you aren't supposed to be and explain that they will turn you around and send you on your way. period. If you are threatening and gun your vehicle to blow past them or at them you will be shot and killed. period. seems pretty damn cut and dry to me.

      doesn't matter if you like the NSA or not or want to see them dismantled, there is a time and a way to do that...gunning your car at the guards guarding a secure Military site isn't one of them...

    53. Re: Ballsy, but stupid ... by BlueTrin · · Score: 1

      This is why no details have been released so far, they are cleaning the scene ... Mulder ? Help !

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    54. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Copid · · Score: 1

      If you're guarding an NSA facility, your job is to risk your life for the people and secrets inside that facility, not people trying to force their way in. If you try to strong arm your way into an NSA facility, you're probably up to no good. At best you're an unstable person trying to make a political statement and you don't mind putting others in danger to do so. At worst, you're carrying an assault team or a car bomb and things will get infinitely worse if your vehicle is allowed to hit one of those buildings.

      The "Let's just see how this plays out" response is the response you get before you try to breach the outer perimter. That's your not-getting-shot-at freebee. Once you've used up that freebee, you don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. It's kind of like breaking into somebody's house at night while their family is sleeping. You get the benefit of the doubt if you stay outside the front door. Once you climb in the window, you've burned through all of your goodwill and nobody really owes you any deference.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    55. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Copid · · Score: 1

      Once you've rammed through those gates, it's not unreasonable to weigh the possibility that you're doing something like this. If you don't want your intentions to be misunderstood, not ramming the gates is a good place to start.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    56. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by WoOS · · Score: 1

      Even people who try to ram the gates of a federal military facility still deserve their right to a fair trial.

      Nope. There are huge signs posted along the fence of military compounds which read "Keep out! Weapon use!" (or similar, I only know the German version). If you enter nevertheless, the patrols on the inside will assume that you are part of an enemy force trying to sabotage the equipment as part of a starting military action. And if you act stupidly, especially in a way the patrol feels threatened, you might get shot.

      Your entrance to such a prohibited area alone makes you an immediate and obvious danger as there is no other reason to climb the fence/break the gate.

    57. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Executing people on sight is easy - but it's not justice or law enforcement.

      Perhaps you are not clear on the concept, but this did not happen in a court room but at a military checkpoint. That is a very significant caveat.

      You are WAY too flippant about the value of human life - even idiot humans.

      Right back at ya, sonny! You are way too flippant about the value of human life. This was at the perimeter of a military base, which are known to be targets for violent attack. It's not like this concept was just discovered earlier today.

      People in uniform are people like anyone else - allowing guards to shoot whoever is not an immediate threat to human life is opening yourself up to problems you do NOT want (many examples the world over - Congo, many parts of South America, etc).

      Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of a checkpoint at the entrance to a military base. They don't just shoot people because they feel like it that day. There are always (and I do mean always) plenty of indicators that you are entering a restricted area long before you are met by armed guards. First, you will see plenty of signs way before you reach the checkpoint telling you that you are entering a restricted area giving you the option to turn around and leave. You will also notice the checkpoint up in the distance long before you reach it. When you finally reach the checkpoint a guard will ask to see your ID. If you don't have one, the guard will politely tell you that you have to turn around and leave. Usually they will help you out with this by directing traffic so that you can get yourself turned around to leave the area. If you are reasonable you can expect that the guards will be reasonable, polite, and professional in return. Even when you are acting unreasonable/argumentative you will likely find them to be polite, albeit firm, in turning you away. It is only when you decide to ram your vehicle through the checkpoint that you can expect to be met with lethal force. Did I mention that military bases are known to be targets for violent attack? Why, in fact, yes, I did!

      Seriously, do you people in the USA even believe in your Constitution anymore? "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" and all that other stuff?

      For the last time, this did not happen in a court of law! This happened at the entrance to a military base. One that is quite clearly identified as such. This is not a trivial difference.

      Or have you really all degenerated into "person in uniform said... so it must be good"?

      Oh, Puhleeze! This did not happen just anywhere. This happened at a clearly identified entrance to a military base. They ignored orders to leave the area and, instead tried to ram their vehicle through the checkpoint.

      Police shootings should be reserved for life and death EMERGENCIES - I have seen no proof this was one.

      (PS - yes the cars hit, but that's not "immediate danger", as cars where the driver has been shot often don't do the best job parking).

      You apparently do not realize just how much of a life or death emergency this really is. Perhaps you are too young to recall the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. US DoD is determined to never let that happen again, if they can help it. I'm sure that the guards at checkpoints at all US military installations are educated about that incident so they know what the consequences of letting someone ram a vehicle through the checkpoint can be. Now do you finally understand why lethal force was appropriate in this case?

    58. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "valid criticisms against global spying" If you are going to criticize the NSA you also need to include all the other global state security organizations. So far everyone acts like the NSA is the only organization that participates in the global spying.

    59. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Xest · · Score: 2

      I absolutely agree with the latter half of your post, that these guys got what they deserved for trying to ram a military checkpoint, but I disagree that non-lethal options couldn't have worked.

      I say this because I live in the UK, where non-lethal is the only option available to most our law enforcement officers, and they stop aggressive drivers regularly without harm. Even where armed police are involved they typically shoot the vehicle unless there's evidence one of the people in the car physically has hold of a gun and has started firing back. I do not believe it increases the overall risk to people doing the stop, because our officers also have far lower casualty rates than yours by just about every metric breakdown.

      On a base like this I'm surprised they don't just have retractable barriers in the floor that a car simply cannot pass until the barrier has been lowered after being given permission to enter. From there it's trivial to hold guns up at the people in the car and tell them to get out slowly, without having to actually shoot them. These sorts of barriers are widely available, as are one way barriers that pop down when driven over, but block if you try and reverse back meaning such a vehicle would be completely trapped between two sets of barriers.

      So whilst I disagree with the AC's view that these people shouldn't have expected to be shot, I do think there's some merit in his point that in the US the gun has in far too many circumstances become the first course of action, when it should really be the last.

    60. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      open fire if you fail to immediately comply with their orders

      That sounds like murder to me.

      Failing to comply with the orders of someone is not grounds for shooting them.

    61. Re: Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say any reasonable person would understand that depends on the order.

      "Don't run us down with your car" seems like an order that, gone unheeded, ought to get you shot. Even the implied by just a "stop" order to something that is barreling toward you is good reason.

      Maybe you think they should have to sign a document saying "yes, I understand the order and choose not to comply, well aware I may cause death and mayhem" before getting shot?

      People that are against overuse of force by authorities are set back any time someone opens their mouth claiming to be one of them and taking the argument to absurd places.

    62. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by ralphsiegler · · Score: 1

      Someone attempting running gate at nuke plant will certainly get much LESS consideration than the perps in this story. *They will kill you.* Even trespasser on foot will get exactly one warning to assume surrender position, then the bullets fly. I know this from former employment at one, security exercises were fun to hear and watch.

    63. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Lew-the-nerd · · Score: 1

      This didn't happen at the Army Base entrance; it happened at the separate entrance to NSA (there are lots of entrances, some through the Army base and this separate large multi-lane NSA-only entrance). There are thousands of people that go through that gate in the AM and PM and entering/lowering gates would be a real log-jam.
      Typically, in addition to actual barriers that can be raised in a moment out of the ground, there is usually a NSA police car parked to partially block the lane that people have to drive around.
      In the event of a problem the NSA car eases forward - just in case.
      My surmise is that, if the big barriers go up, it happens at all the gates and there had better be a good reason, not just a transient issue.
      Without knowing the specific details of this case, my guess is that there was an issue, they were told to turn around, the SUV moved to block them actually proceeding in rather than turning and they charged the NSA SUV.
      The barriers went up, in case this was a multi-vehicle attempt - and all over Ft Meade, the barriers went up.

       

    64. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Lew-the-nerd · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see.
      You don't know what should have been done in the 2 or 3 seconds that the car rolled forward but certainly not what they did.

      Perhaps move the herd of unicorns into their path?

    65. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was one of them. There were 5 M-4.s 6 M-9 s and a Turret mounted M-249 on a HUMMV on each gate. They would not let us use the M-60 s or the M-2 s because the rounds would travel to far. Nothing wrong with a little overkill. LOL

    66. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      No one is disputing that there are pros to the spying, or that there are bad people out there. What I AM disputing is that in order to protect our way of life against ignorant fundamentalists, we need to have a massive electronic spying program, one we didn't have for the bulk of our two centuries as a country.

      Ending the NSA would compromise our ability to prevent terrorism. Probably on American soil. I'm okay with that risk! I will take the increased chances of bad people doing bad things to me and my family in exchange for the government not spying on me. Deal! I won't even demand my taxes be reduced, just put the money towards paying down the debt or research or infrastructure!

    67. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Ending the NSA would compromise our ability to prevent terrorism.

      There are plenty of other people who don't like us and are much more dangerous than terrorists. I may be unhappy with the way the NSA has been acting and I think some changes should be made but what you're suggesting is just reckless.

    68. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Bruce Campbell said in Alien Apocalypse, it was terminal.

    69. Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what I'm saying is that you have been watching too many movies. By the time the two idiots rammed through the gate and crashed into other vehicles, the guard's hopes for a peaceful resolution of the situation were essentially zero. Just put yourself in the guard's shoes and try to imagine what went through his head at that moment. And then think through that stupid "ram the car off the road" proposal, and you will realize that... well... it is stupid.

  4. Oblig Wayne Lapierre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a car, is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne Lapierre

    1. Re:Oblig Wayne Lapierre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good argument for mandated self driving cars and everyone owning guns. Also, the bad guy could make a mistake and run out of gas.

    2. Re:Oblig Wayne Lapierre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outbrain raised its cut of the clickbait revenue on them, so they had to lay off the proofreader

  5. Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "An NSA police officer shot one of the people dead dead and seriously injured the second."

    How dead is "dead dead" vis-à-vis other levels of death?

    1. Re:Only mostly dead? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      It's the dead level of dead, obviously.

      It lies between "pretty dead" and "extra dead".

    2. Re:Only mostly dead? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Its like done and "done done". We may want to adjust our definition of "done" and "dead" in our next retrospective.

    3. Re:Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Outbrain raised its cut of the clickbait revenue on them, so they had to lay off the proofreader.

    4. Re:Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1st shot killed him, then he rose up as a zombie, only to be shot dead dead

    5. Re:Only mostly dead? by Adriax · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the scale goes:
      Mostly dead- Slightly alive.
      Pretty dead- Don't expect them at poker night next friday.
      Dead dead- Attempted to invade the NSA.
      All dead- Go through their pockets and look for loose change.
      Extra dead- Now that's just excessive. I mean really, what possessed you to just keep going like that?
      Un dead- Well congratulations. You killed it so hard it went far past Dead on the Life-Death scale and looped around to the other side.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    6. Re:Only mostly dead? by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 2

      Well, there's "almost dead", which Miracle Max can still cure, as opposed to "all dead" when all that's left is search their pockets for loose change.

      Then there is "mostly dead" which you can have all day and still foil the plan of your adversaries.

      It seems to me that the poor saps who tried to invade the NSA went from "mostly dead" to "almost dead" to "all dead" in very short succession. Thus they are a special class of "dead dead".

    7. Re:Only mostly dead? by vm146j2 · · Score: 2

      Double-plus dead, now another visit from Minitrue for you.

      --
      "Lost time is not found again."
    8. Re:Only mostly dead? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's "living dead" not "un dead" - the zombie lobby will be up in arms at that non-PC language.

      Actually maybe that's what the article is claiming. The living dead zombies were attacking the NSA but they are now dead dead since luckily an agent on duty new to aim for the head.

    9. Re:Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dead is "dead dead" vis-à-vis other levels of death?

      Dead is the kind of dead that may come back and haunt you.

      Dead dead contains a certain amount of assurance that there won't be any undead.

    10. Re:Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "living dead" not "un dead" - the zombie lobby will be up in arms at that non-PC language.

      They still get twitchy at any mention of death. It's all about the "vitally challenged" these days.

    11. Re: Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead-dead means they might not be good for organ donation.

    12. Re:Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's one thing I learned from D&D, it's: if, and only if, you can loot the victims without them complaining, they are Dead Enough.

    13. Re:Only mostly dead? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between dead and dead dead. Only dead is slightly alive. With dead dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

  6. Re:News for nerds by blackomegax · · Score: 2

    Because nerds hate the NSA for spying on them.

  7. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by blackomegax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funnily enough the "bad guys" in this situation become a very fuzzy argument.

  8. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shift-4. Bandwidth's not gonna pay for itself.

  9. Life imitates art by tool462 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pretty sure this is just "The Americans" fan fiction...

    1. Re:Life imitates art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Americans" LARP gone bad.

    2. Re:Life imitates art by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      No, that can't be it. The protagonists in the story didn't fuck everyone in sight.

    3. Re:Life imitates art by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Actually, that theory makes the most sense...

  10. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is this here?

    Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.

  11. maybe because it's a quote by tomhath · · Score: 2

    It is quoting what the officials said.

    1. Re:maybe because it's a quote by omnichad · · Score: 2

      What's the point of quoting a single word? Is their word choice relevant?

    2. Re:maybe because it's a quote by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      well as means of attack "penetration" means something more precise than your typical large scale terror attrack. So maybe the security official are playing down it's connection to any 9/11-style terroism? It might well still turn out to be a terrorist incident but something that's relatively minor in the national security threat scale.

    3. Re:maybe because it's a quote by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That really doesn't mean it needs quoted.

    4. Re:maybe because it's a quote by tomhath · · Score: 1

      It's more precise to attribute the word to the officials by putting quotes around it, rather than have it look like an assumption made by the person reporting it. In other words, does NSA think there was an attempt to penetrate their campus? Or does the reporter think it was a deliberate attempt rather than a drink driver?

    5. Re:maybe because it's a quote by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      That really doesn't mean it needs quoted.

      To be, or not to be. That is the ques... no, it's not even a question in this case.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:maybe because it's a quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, are you one of those grammatical hypocrites that rages against the missing "to be" after "needs" but doesn't mind omitting it after "seems"?

      Example: "It needs fixed" vs. "It seems fixed"

      Inquiring minds want to know.

    7. Re:maybe because it's a quote by Sun · · Score: 1

      "To be or not to be", or, in it's C style syntax: "2b || !2b", is not a question at all. It is a tautology. It is true regardless of what semantic value you assign to 2b.

      Shachar

      P.s.
      Yes, I know, C identifiers cannot begin with a digit.

    8. Re:maybe because it's a quote by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      "To be or not to be", or, in it's C style syntax: "2b || !2b", is not a question at all. It is a tautology. It is true regardless of what semantic value you assign to 2b.

      I gather you've never read the source material?
      That particular soliloquy was Hamlet's musings on suicide as a solution to his problems....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:maybe because it's a quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh. or not.

    10. Re:maybe because it's a quote by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Example: "It needs fixed" vs. "It seems fixed"

      A poor choice of things to compare.

      "It needs to be fixed" can read like "It needs to be changed from its current state to a new state, in which is has been fixed." What it needs is something that, once done, will put the act of fixing it in the past tense. "It needs some fixing, so that it will then be fixed." If you're going with the shorter "It needs to be fixed," the "to be" needs to be there if you're going to used that future-sense changed state of "fixed." Or, one should just use: "It needs fixing," where "fixing," a gerund, acts like any other noun that would serve as the object of the sentence.

      "It seems fixed," on the other hand, is a completely different construction. There is no assertion of the need for an action (like needing TO BE fixed). It's an observation about its current state (it's in the state of already having been fixed). The "seems" casts mild doubt on the quality of the assertion, but that's just modifying the word "fixed" in this case, which is acting as an adjective (the thing is fast, the thing is light weight, the thing is expensive, the thing is fixed). Think of saying, "It looks blue." Normal usage is rarely, "It looks to be blue," any more than it is, "It seems to be fixed." You could replace "seems" with "feels," knowing that you'd also be far more likely to say, "It's no longer wobbly. It feels fixed," than you would "It feels to be fixed."

      So, are you one of those grammatical hypocrites

      No, it seems I'm not.

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      No, an inquiring mind would have thought it through before trotting that one out.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:maybe because it's a quote by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I would take it to mean that the reporter is merely quoting the officials as opposed to corroborating that it was in fact an attempted "penetration" as opposed to being an attempted "bombing" or "protest" or "delivery" or "request for directions" or "wrong turn".

    12. Re:maybe because it's a quote by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That would be relevant if they were quoting the article where the reporter says that. Click through and read. The word penetrate doesn't appear in the article.

      This was the summary writer using quotation marks for emphasis of some sort. If they were quoting something, we don't know from where.

    13. Re:maybe because it's a quote by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's better in the original Klingon.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. I'm not dead yet by tomhath · · Score: 1

    And only seriously injured but didn't seriously seriously injure the second.

  13. Re:News for nerds by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTA
    " An NSA police officer shot one of the people dead dead and seriously injured the second."

    Apparently the culprit was shot double-dead
    Nerds love zombie stories, hence it is on /.

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  14. next week on CSI: cyber ! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Until Dr. Charles Luther h@xx0rs your self-driving car and makes it crash through the gates at a military base.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  15. Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were not the... drag queens you are looking for?

  16. You would think by AlCapwn · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'd think they would have seen this coming.

    1. Re:You would think by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But they couldn't act on it in advance or they'd risk revealing just how much they know. /paranoia

    2. Re:You would think by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Clearly they were not targeting drag queen forums. This oversight will be addressed.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  17. Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.

    How can they know this so quickly ? I thought terrorist was a label for persons using violence for political motives. Even if these people were not foreigners wouldn't anybody using violence against the NSA likely be motivated by politics ? Unless this was an angry employee (workplace violence) or some April fools prank that went horribly wrong...

    1. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Terrorism is a word to referencing 1st graders eating their poptart in the shape of a gun.

    2. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now i'm not saying that it is, perhaps it was just a drunken rage or some other non politically motivated random act, the base had over 29,000 people on the inside of the wall. It could have been simply a case of adultery involving a person inside the perimeter. Naturally because of the target we all go to political motivation as the driving factor but until we learn more we can assume any infinite number of factors inspired the event.

    3. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case the terrorists are behind the gates.

    4. Re:Not terrorism ? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Because they hadn't been grooming the suspects and didn't help them obtain driver's licenses; which means these people were at least competent enough to acquire a car and fuel on their own.... so its unlikely to be terrorism in the sense we have become accustomed to in the past decade or so.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re: Not terrorism ? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Of course it wasn't terrorism. The FBI didn't plan it.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:Not terrorism ? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Sometimes the US government is reasonable when it comes to defining terrorism.

      The intelligence agencies in particular, are pretty good about insisting that attacking soldiers/"combatants" is not terrorism. The NSA probably insisted that the FBI say it wasn't terrorism.

      Note, the reason the Intelligence agencies are good about not falsely claiming terrorism is that they themselves routinely kill people for political reasons and they don't want other people to call them terrorists. After all, you don't want to say that killing a spy is terrorism if you yourself kill spies. So they loudly claim that only killing a civilian makes you a terrorist.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly they organised the whole thing and therefore have inside knowledge that they (the largest bunch of terrorists in the world) are not terrorists.

    8. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems more than fair, killing random civilians is in my eyes worse than attacking a party who accepted a vocation that can likely lead to attacking other people or being attacked.

    9. Re:Not terrorism ? by buck-yar · · Score: 2

      They are saying its not terrorism because if this was terrorism, they should have know in advance of this given that's what they exist for.

      Can't let people know they never succeed at their primary objective. Or do anything but support illegal parallel construction.

    10. Re:Not terrorism ? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Perpetrators did not have muslim-y names.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:Not terrorism ? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I took it to mean that the perps were white. If they were brown then it would have been a terrorist case.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    12. Re:Not terrorism ? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Also, it's harder to call something "terrorism" when the targets are heavily armed, more than capable of defending themselves, and are unlikely to be "terrorized" by the attack.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Not terrorism ? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      >The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.

      How can they know this so quickly ? I thought terrorist was a label for persons using violence for political motives.

      Who said they were using violence? Trespassing doesn't imply violence. And they were the ones who got shot. They themselves didn't shoot anyone.

      They could just have been a couple of well known protesters with no history of violence, but with an history of trying to do publicity stunts for their cause.

      If anyone should know, it's the NSA. For about an hour, I bet every NSA analyst dropped what they were doing to investigate and go through the life records of these two individuals.

    14. Re:Not terrorism ? by gtall · · Score: 1

      There is no they in the sense of a bureaucratic determination. There was just some reporter asking questions of people who may or may not know what really happened.

    15. Re:Not terrorism ? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding ... attempting to force your way into something guarded by armed military personnel and then discovering they're not afraid of you isn't terrorism.

      It's a frickin' Darwin award.

      I consider that only one of them is dead to be either extraordinary luck, or surprising restraint on behalf of the soldiers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said they were using violence? Trespassing doesn't imply violence

      The incident is described as trying to ram the gate with a car. Photos from the scene show two badly damaged vehicles. American police routinely open fire on people who drive vehicles in the direction of officers when trying to escape - claiming self defense against the deadly weapon of the car. Unless this was an auto accident - they were using violence and had a weapon.

    17. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said they were using violence? Trespassing doesn't imply violence.

      ummm , if they weren't using violence , then why were they shot ?

    18. Re:Not terrorism ? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      I agree. The rules the CIA etc. use for deciding who is a terrorist and who is not, while self-serving, are definitely a lot better than what the media uses.

      Among other things, it means the bombing of the navy ship USS Cole is not a terrorist attack.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    19. Re:Not terrorism ? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      right

      not "terrorism in the sense we have become accustomed to"

      but still terrorism

      what tim mcveigh did was terrorism, for example

      maybe unfortunately terrorism has come to mean "done by muslims"

      although, maybe we should remove attacks on military installations as terrorism

      surprise coordinated violent attacks on civilians for ideological reasons is about as good a definition of terrorism as we can get i think

      we call too many things terrorism that are not, and too many things not terrorism that are

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:Not terrorism ? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      No what I was saying is the "terrorists we are used to" are generally fools the FBI setup to make headlines to justify their overhyped jobs. My particular favorite is the dude they approached asking if he could get a shoulder fired missile.

      Over the months they watched him, he stalled and bumbled and utterly failed to do anything of note, except be told by contacts he had from previous legal buisiness that he couldn't get one. The entire time the only thing he did on his own was download a sales brochure off the internet to show them. Seriously....

      they handed him contacts, they handed him fake papers, they handed him the missile itself..

      What are they protecting us from exactly when they have to create the terrorists before they can find them? Its a bullshit jobs program from the TSA to the FBI.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    21. Re:Not terrorism ? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I took it to mean that the perps were white. If they were brown then it would have been a terrorist case.

      No, you're getting your media memes all wrong. If they were brown, it would have been, by default and without any need for further analysis, another case of police brutality blah blah blah. Please get your coverage spin in sync with contemporary standards. There are people who make a living off of faux racial outrage, and if you don't help their hype, they're going to have to find other work.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:Not terrorism ? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Who said they were using violence?

      Failing to stop your multi-thousand-pound vehicle as you drive at a military checkpoint is telegraphing violent intent. At least, that's how the guards have to treat it. Driving a suicide car bomb at/through checkpoints is a well established tactic, and has produced a no-compromises protocol in response. When you give off all the signs of violent intent, there's really no way to just let them carry on and decide later if they were a threat. It's not video game with a retry button the guards can push after they've been blown to pieces.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    23. Re:Not terrorism ? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      lol

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    24. Re:Not terrorism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were trying to force their way OUT, not in.

      Is nobody else bothered by this little idiosyncrasy?

  18. Re:News for nerds by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Has Barbara Hudson posted today?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  19. stupid by mpicpp · · Score: 1

    Attacking the government in such a fashion gives them an excuse to seize more power.

    1. Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots will always support more power no matter what.

    2. Re:stupid by buck-yar · · Score: 1

      Power mongers will use any opportunity.

    3. Re:stupid by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, I'm a pretty heavy user of tinfoil with an inherent distrust of government.

      But even I don't need to look at this as an abuse of power by the government.

      The rights of US military personnel to shoot your stupid self for trying to ram through a gated checkpoint with big giant signs saying "we can and will stop you, by force if necessary" has been established for an incredibly long time.

      Most of the last century, I should think. Probably MUCH longer.

      Sorry, but this falls entirely in the domain of "if you didn't see this one coming you're an idiot".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how much power is left to take, they're as near as makes no difference to absolute already

    5. Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days they attack themselves then seize power. It saves time otherwise wasted on waiting for an actual enemy (whatever that means - presumably anyone who's not american) to attack.

    6. Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You know, I'm a pretty heavy user of tinfoil with an inherent distrust of government.

      Just wait and see that it turns out these guys were 'groomed' by the FBI, like all the others. Their vehicle is going to be packed with fake explosives, supplied by the FBI. They intended to ram through the gate (because they are stupid, just the way the FBI likes 'em) and detonate it somewhere on base - maybe at one of the other buildings that have nothing to do with the NSA. And the only reason they actually got to the gate is that their FBI 'handlers' were sloppy and lost track of them. Probably because they got up earlier than planned and left before the FBI handlers got to work that day...

      That is totally made up on the spot, but I don't think its implausible. I wish it were, but the FBI program of terrorist grooming has just gotten completely out of hand.

    7. Re:stupid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      More like idiots will find a way to kill themselves. Now it's suicide by gate guards.

    8. Re:stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is totally made up on the spot, but I don't think its implausible. I wish it were, but the FBI program of terrorist grooming has just gotten completely out of hand.

      What has gotten out of hand is your vivid imagination.

  20. Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TWO? Just two? and if they were going to get into a shootout, why the hell did they bother dressing like women?

    1. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because not doing so would ruin the whole enraged trans-sexual lesbian bed death angle.

  21. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that's the point he was trying to make, albeit in a really crude and obtuse way

  22. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this here?

    Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.

    Obviously they didn't plan this over the phone, or via email, or in front of their TV that sends their voices to the 'cloud', or any of the other myriad of ways the NSA should have seen them and caught their plan.

  23. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    No its pretty easy, they were in disguise trying to pass a bad guys checkpoint....

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  24. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To troll assholes like you.

  25. RED 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This time, they are even older.
    And they have backup, that skeleton army from one of the Jason films.

  26. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are nerds not interested in anything that goes on around them if it doesn't involve flashing LEDs or misogyny?

  27. A sign of progress? by sootman · · Score: 1

    "The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism."

    WOW! Seriously. This is great news. I just figured EVERYTHING was ALWAYS called "terrorism" now. Is someone finally figuring out that if everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism? Do we no longer need to invoke the boogeyman every time something bad happens? Oh happy day.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:A sign of progress? by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just figured EVERYTHING was ALWAYS called "terrorism" now

      No one at Lufthansa or the German government have called the Lufthansa mass murder `terrorism.' The '09 Ft. Hood shootings are still officially classified as `workplace violence' despite all evidence to the contrary, and Nidal Hasan was not charged or convicted has a terrorist. Obama has never gone further than the generalization that "anytime bombs are used ... it's terror" regarding the Boston marathon bombings, and Tsarnaev isn't charged under any terror statutes.

      Is someone finally figuring out that if everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism?

      They've figured it out just fine, as the specific cases I cite prove. The authorities are clearly being conservative with the use of the term `terror' and erroring on the side of `not terror' in their prosecution of violent acts. The problem isn't our authorities labeling `everything' terrorism. The problem is the fictional world filled with hysterical terror-mongers you've nurtured inside your head. It's not real. There is something wrong in there.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:A sign of progress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the fictional world filled with hysterical terror-mongers you've nurtured inside your head. It's not real. There is something wrong in there.

      A bigger problem is people who accept the label of terrorist or terrorism as arbitrarily applied by those in power. Maybe we should all decide who is and is not a terrorist ourselves. In the case of the germanwings pilot , as far as anybody knows he was a disturbed man who was suicidal. He had no known political motive. The fort Hood shooter was clearly a terrorist who had political motives , but big brother has declined to label him as such perhaps so they don't have to explain why they let a terrorist become a US army officer and doctor.

    3. Re: A sign of progress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really ? When your Saudi-grown Chechnyans dropped some self-made bombs they called them "weapons of mass destruction".

      You know, like an atomic bomb or a Saddamic bomb.

      In other words, give us some better $hilling, Mr GovLiar.

    4. Re: A sign of progress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice you bring this up. Maybe the french have CONSTRUCTED this whole story. Why ?

      There was a flight from Bilbao to Germany less than two weeks ago, also with an A320 of Lufthansa. Essentially the same region.

      The a/c decided to go into a steep dive and the pilots could do nothing against it, until the captain decided to disengage the software control laws. Now Airbus CLAIMS that this happened due to some icing in the airflow vector sensors.

      They also claimed "icing" with the pitot tubes for the AF plane which crashed between Brazil and France a few years ago.

      What gives ? Airbus and their suppliers too stupid, too cheap, too inexperienced to simulate freezing conditions in some small wind tunnel ?

      Yeah, fucking plausible. And sure as hell it could NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be a cyber attack via the GPS receiver straight into the control computer. And surely the french would be totally above the construction of a nice lie as to what actually happened.

      Color me skeptical. I know software, and it is mostly shitty. They take out radar station's software, why not the control software of an a320 ?

      They lied about the shootdown of a civil airliner over italy, done by NATO, when they tried to go after Ghadaffi. Who lies once, will lie again.

    5. Re:A sign of progress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In WWII it was called sabatoge. BUTT I guess that has been redefined as terrorism so we don't get any sort of idea that this may be some sort of war activity. See you feel better already.

    6. Re:A sign of progress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the fictional world filled with hysterical terror-mongers you've nurtured inside your head. It's not real. There is something wrong in there.

      The same world where the NSA tracks your phone through the ad-rotater on Angry Birds: Free Edition, to find out whether or not you frequent gay bars during the evenings -- all to prevent terrorism? I think he's got a much better grasp of federal overreach on the term than you do.

  28. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, more obviously, this was planned by the NSA to dissuade real attacks in the future. "Look what we will do to you."

    captcha: pilgrims

  29. should have dressed as laser techs by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Then just tell the MPs that they will want civilians jobs as well.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Re:News for nerds by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    subtle, but funny. for the lack of mod points.. =/

  31. interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    Bad guys. You have to wonder how many foreign gov Astroturf here.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by maliqua · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't take a foreign government funding a team of trolls to fill a small page with angry comments about the NSA

    2. Re:interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by PPH · · Score: 2

      Because exercising freedom of speech makes one an Enemy Of The State, right?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by sobachatina · · Score: 2

      Foreign governments?

      Surely you must have noticed all the bad press the NSA has gotten lately with the Snowden leaks.

      Even the most patriotic American might be disturbed upon learning that a trusted government agency has been illegally spying on American citizens for years.

      Frankly I'm surprised that you seem to be standing up for the NSA. That takes some guts.

    4. Re: interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever is not for George Bu$h must be a foreign gov operative, didnt you read the memo ?

      Wheover does not join Georgie in his satanic war against an innocent nation, must be...you get it.

    5. Re:interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The NSA aren't bad guys or good guys. They simply are. A wrench is neither bad nor good it's just a tool to remove a bolt or nut. The NSA is a tool used to spy on and analyze people and organizations that are considered a threat by the US government. If they do things that aren't legal you can bet someone very high in the US government authorized it. Probably at the very top.

    6. Re:interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think that would depend on exactly what you said.

    7. Re: interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise, surely it was not the fault of Felxi T that Stains was a bastard. And lets blame everything on Hitler, below him these were innocent hard working experts. Mao is to be blamed entirely for all the brutal stuff of his subordinates.

      When you are at it, stick the gassing of Iraqis to the British king of that time. Churchill and Harris were just his tools and otherwise 100% innocent.

      Dont forget the special attorneys of the Spanish crown. Not their torture was evil, just that it had been abused by the Spanish king.

      Yeah, makes a fucking lot of sense, lets go to the Ft Meade loo and use some Magna Charta to wipe the a$$.

    8. Re: interesting that so many AC call NSA the... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Man what are we talking about here? Torture? Murder? Genocide? Or just spying? Because that's what the NSA does. It spies on people and analyzes the information they glean. You really want to equate that to death camps? I know there are some case where torture did occur and certainly anyone who tortured someone should know that even if ordered by higher authority that is not something you can do. Tapping someones phone without a warrant? Not so much.

  32. Not related to terrorism by C3ntaur · · Score: 1

    The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.

    In other words, it's only terrorism when it suits our political agenda to call it that.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Not related to terrorism by pz · · Score: 1

      The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.

      In other words, it's only terrorism when it suits our political agenda to call it that.

      I'd more expect it to be an instance of espionage, not terrorism. Why do you expect every attempt to breach a government facility to be called terrorism?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:Not related to terrorism by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Generally, terrorism is targeted at civilians or civilian infrastructure. An attack on uniformed soldiers at a government/military installation is not terrorism.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Not related to terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or it just means that they're white.

      Most acts of terrorism perpetrated in the US are by white, native born US citizens. It's just not politically expedient to call abortion clinic bombers, church/mosque/synagogue burners, or treehuggers that sabotage logging operations 'terrorists'

      Terrorist is, in the public eye, means foreign brown person that practices some pagan religion (Yes, I'm aware the irony of that in light of what religions are an arent considered Abrahamic.)

    4. Re:Not related to terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean like Timothy McVeigh?

      LMAO.. first line of Wikipedia: "Timothy James "Tim" McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American terrorist."

      So, in summary, fuck off.

    5. Re:Not related to terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      . An attack on uniformed soldiers at a government/military installation is not terrorism.

      By that definition the 911 attack on the pentagon was not terrorism. Also the NSA is a civilian agency.

    6. Re:Not related to terrorism by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure the people on American Airlines flight 77 were civilians.

      And I'm pretty sure the US Army guards in front of the NSA building are uniformed military.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Not related to terrorism by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      One cannot help but wonder if phone numbers were requested of the cross dressers?

  33. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA is really harsh on transvestites; how do they feel about man-bras for moobs?

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We prefer the term "transgendered," actually.

  34. Security assesments and 3rd party hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt these companies went through network, server and application security assessments and then completely ignored their 3rd party Ad provider that hosts their Ads on a hacked shared host.

  35. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.

    Yes it is. The NSA are, by definition, terrorists. They use fear (read: "terror") to incite their political beliefs and control the population.

    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.

      Yes it is. The NSA are, by definition, terrorists. They use fear (read: "terror") to incite their political beliefs and control the population.

      Only if the population lives in fear of the NSA. Personally, I don't live in fear of the NSA as there are many more bad actors out there more likely to cause me harm. I choose to worry about things that are more likely, like identify theft. The NSA doesn't scare me at all because they at least have SOME rules, criminals don't even have those.

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

      There are many people sympathetic to the causes of terrorist groups. You just happen to align with the NSA. It doesn't make them not terrorists; it just makes you, specifically, not afraid of them. I am not judging you on what you've stated and I don't think you are being unreasonable, but rather just stating there's a minor hole in your explanation.

    3. Re:Interesting... by PPH · · Score: 1

      I choose to worry about things that are more likely, like identify theft.

      So putting back doors in encryption software is OK when done for national security purposes. But bad when hackers exploit these same engineered weaknesses to steal your personal information. Leave your front door unlocked so the police may more easily conduct searches. Never mind that the incidence of burglers cleaning your house out will be orders of magnitude more common. And don't forget that Snowden was an anomoly only in that he forwarded data he absconded with to the press. The NSA/FBI/CIA is full of "contractors" that slip copies of data to buddies in private enterprise for purposes of industrial and commercial espionage.

      Our civil rights take a back seat to the needs of law enforcement to manage the populace for the benefit of the elite.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA doesn't scare me at all because they at least have SOME rules, criminals don't even have those.

      What is your source for this radical claim? Their charter is they can do anything unless disallowed...in direct contrast to the constitution...

      That is as criminal as it gets...the "criminals" don't claim to be serving the U.S. or its people...

      they are extra-criminal, super-criminal, advanced-stage criminals.

  36. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this here?

    Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.

    Obviously they didn't plan this over the phone, or via email, or in front of their TV that sends their voices to the 'cloud', or any of the other myriad of ways the NSA should have seen them and caught their plan.

    Or.. Perhaps the NSA isn't the clairvoyant, all knowing, super snooper that some claim they are...

  37. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They tried to breach one of the most secure locations in the world by crashing an SUV into the gates. If they even had a "plan" going in, I'd imagine it was made with crayons and construction paper. Maybe a couple toilet paper tubes and some elmer's glue if they decided to get extra fancy.

  38. Shanigans : Originally Reported as Two Women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess shooting at two men in dresses is more acceptable than shooting at two unarmed women.

    Current article says "two people" now.

  39. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this here?

    Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.

    But they DID have an armed guard to deal with such cases.

  40. Didn't see 'em coming by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    The NSA probably couldn't get a bead on the attackers, because they were wearing tin foil hats.

  41. Re:News for nerds by davester666 · · Score: 1

    But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them? Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  42. Security breach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm so sorry I read these comments, as retired DOD it's starting to become apparent that while we were trying to protect the people and homeland of this country, it seems now we've been trying to protect morons who cheer for the destruction of personnel engaged in this endeavor.

    1. Re:Security breach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't even pretend that you even gave a shit about the common folk of this country. You don't. You never did. Your job was to protect the elite.

    2. Re:Security breach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you join a terrorist organization don't be surprised that you hear negative comments about your employer

    3. Re: Security breach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erich Mielke feels with you.

    4. Re:Security breach by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Says alot about DOD hiring standards and methodologies.

  43. Was not a shootout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The men who allegedly attempted to trespass on government property did not shoot back.

  44. Identity of the disguised attackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were any of the two shot dead Edward Snowden or Julian Assange?

  45. Re:News for nerds by gtall · · Score: 1

    Stop watching TV.

  46. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, not quite.

    Because nerds hate the NSA for spying on ordinary, law abiding citizens and completely missing the dumb fucks that are the real problem.

  47. After along weekend on the town. by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

    Hmm, last time I saw this it was drunk soldiers coming back to the wrong gate after a night on the town in the 80s.

  48. Perps were doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's how you penetrate an army base.

  49. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that's to trace your movements if you start actually acquiring power or otherwise start influencing things in a way they don't like.

  50. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Funnily enough, you didn't read the title of the post you replied to.

  51. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MacGyver!

  52. Um, Yeah... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Crashing through a gate where there's a guy armed with a machine gun is a really good way to get shot, a lot. It annoys the guy with the machine gun, and he has a tendency to shoot things that annoy him. And he's not using the cheap Wal*Mart bullets, either. The last thing to go through your head, I mean, before bullets, would probably be "Wow, those are really some high quality bullets that guy is shooting me with!" I seem to recall that this sort of thing was fairly common back in the 70's and 80's with the hippies trying to disrupt the SAC air force bases. We seem to be having a spike in the crazy/stupid lately, where people seem to think that if you go crashing through a gate with a guy with a machine gun, they'll be nice to you or something. Nope. Not the case at all.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Um, Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a random guy with a "machine gun" on the front porch... people ramming things into Army bases start wars....

    2. Re:Um, Yeah... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I can see where Google Cars could be put to good use here. The cross dressing terrorists won't damage structures, and the NSA can get video of bad guys driving away. Win win in my opinion.

    3. Re:Um, Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...he's not using the cheap Wal*Mart bullets, either."

      Ah that explains why this story is even on /. it is all about the technology of the bullets.

  53. Re:News for nerds by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them?

    Hint: not everything you see on NCIS or CSI:Wherever actually works like it dos on TV.

    Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?

    It can definitely help to be able follow the trail after someone does something especially awful - sometimes bad guys actually have accomplices.

    But more to the point in this case: reports are that the vehicle they used was stolen, along with its license plates.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  54. Han shot first. by westlake · · Score: 1

    The men who allegedly attempted to trespass on government property did not shoot back.

    Well, duh, Crash the gates of a capital district military base and you won't live long enough to get a chance to shoot back.

    1. Re:Han shot first. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Two distinct things here:
      1) It was a violent assault on a military gatepost, and deserved an armed response. (I question the desireability of lethal, as it's much better if they can answer questions afterwards.)
      2) It was not a shootout. Only one side gave evidence of having guns, and I have heard no claim by anyone knowledgeable that the assaulter had guns.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Han shot first. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      If any of the two cross dressers were from Indiana, that would be priceless.

  55. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently they did see this coming that's why the dudes never got past the gate.

  56. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By "agent", perhaps you're thinking of the CIA. The NSA doesn't have agents, only analysts and various other white-collar workers. Their charter is to gather and analyze information for other branches of government (such as the CIA), not to act on it themselves.

    That said, as I understand the news, the death was actually of one of the attackers. In any event, this gives me an opportunity to climb on my soapbox about something that's been bothering me a lot lately.

    [begin soapbox]

    Why do we celebrate the deaths of "innocents" so frequently lately? An NSA employee could be a manager, an analyst, a security guard, a janitor, or many other types of employee. Do each and every one of those human beings deserve to die because of actions you disagree with that were taken by the organization as a whole?

    Coincidentally, I read today about some grisly testimony from the Boston Marathon bombing of innocents who lost their lives or were seriously wounded. This mentality of "any person who belongs to a group I don't like deserves to die" may seem appealing at first, but it becomes less so when you realize that you probably also fit into some group that someone else disagree with.

    Or, to paraphrase John Kennedy, "Ich bin ein infidel".

    [end soapbox]

  57. Exiting by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to a CNN article, they were leaving the secure area, not entering. A quote from an official said they failed to follow proper safe EXITING procedures. Another major news site said that a gun and cocaine were found in the vehicle. It's a large complex and a lot of people live in it. Sounds like drugs were being ferried in or out, and it didn't have anything to do with the NSA or secrets.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Exiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was standard CYA policy in the USA for police to put a gun and a bag of drugs into a car full of unarmed people they had just shot up. You know... self defense from those dangerous drug lords and all.

    2. Re:Exiting by HiThere · · Score: 2

      It has certainly been reported as happening multiple times, and, given the known corruption of the police, is quite believable.

      OTOH, these weren't police. This was a military base. I've never heard it claimed in that situation (though I'm rather sure it has happened). In most circumstances the guards are quite civil, even when you don't know the procedures. But they are armed and under orders to use such force as is necessary...including lethal force.

      It's my expectation that, if the full story ever becomes known, it will turn out to be some sort of drug deal, and that the people leaving were high. It may well turn out that they had the right to be leaving, but that wouldn't give them the right to pass the guard without following procedures.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Exiting by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      NSA agents on drugs reported by CNN? Hay Snowden, you let one slip by without telling us first.

  58. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them? Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?

    Not everything on CSI is real, yet...

  59. not restraint, ROE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not restraint; ROE. From the limited information available, it appears that the guards followed the ROE very well.

  60. Re: I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that US UK protected Saudis started the fire in Chechnya, well what I did I want to say ? Never mind.

  61. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ed snowden is the new adam and eve.

  62. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Because everyone is the good guy in their own eyes. Even the worst oppressive dictators don't view themselves as oppressive dictators - they are just trying to do the best for their people, and if the people don't see it that way then they need to be controlled for their long-term benefit. Also because even the most corrupt organisation is composed largely of people just doing their job - they don't particually want to work for the evil empire, but they have bills to pay just like everyone else.

  63. Re:News for nerds by tburkhol · · Score: 2

    But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them? Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?

    The historical database of license plate sightings is a terrific source of circumstantial evidence against people suspected of wrongdoing.

    eg: your wife turns up dead. You renewed her life insurance policy a month ago. Three weeks ago, your car made several visits to "the bad part of town," possibly while you were at a murder-for-hire meeting. Nevermind that your insurance policy renews every February, and that a water main break diverted your commute.

    Many things look suspicious once suspicion is upon you: the concern with a vast trove of location and communication history is that it is more likely to be twisted to make an honest man look corrupt than it is to find a criminal before he acts.

  64. Re:News for nerds by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

    Why is this here?

    Because the NSA, with all its massive data collection, retention, and analysis, did not see this coming.

    Obviously they didn't plan this over the phone, or via email, or in front of their TV that sends their voices to the 'cloud', or any of the other myriad of ways the NSA should have seen them and caught their plan.

    Or quite possibly the NSA had the needle of necessary information buried in a gigantic hay stack of useless dreck. In this case, if you know absolutely everything then you effectively know nothing.

  65. Cross dressing terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to add men dressed as women to the no fly list.

    Wait, maybe that's the secret to 'not' being stopped by airport security. They aren't terrorist after all...

  66. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because everyone is the good guy in their own eyes. Even the worst oppressive dictators don't view themselves as oppressive dictators - they are just trying to do the best for their people,

    If you think that Saddam or Bennito or Idi or Fidel thought they were doing the best for their people, you are sadly mistaken. They knew what they were doing, and they knew who the intended beneficiaries were.

  67. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure I am a nerd, but I know they care about folks like me. Not because I ever blew anything up. No, it is entirely sufficient to open the eyes of the sheeple for a second. I assume they call it "information terrorism" or something.

    To give you an example, I call them out for being allied to the Saudi Bastards. Again and again. That irks them massively. So much they show me their assets then and now. As in C130 asset.

    Free Speech is much more dangerous to the governments than ANYTHING else.

  68. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or.. Perhaps the privacy was sacrificed for nothing remotely useful and we need to de-fund the NSA.

  69. Re:News for nerds by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    > NSA doesn't spy on nerds, they care about the real world, not Minecraft.

    So you mean World of Warcraft?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  70. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which prove that the entire surveillance ideology is flawed. De-fund the NSA, fire it's crooked secret-traders and end the state's power grab over peoples life.

    So seditious, much reactionary.

  71. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Saddam was a good guy, look at what the Iraqi savages are doing without his iron fist to moderate them; Civil wars, Sunni and Shia murdering each other all the time while both agree to equally murder Christian minority. You may say that Saddam was a blood-lusting dictator, but he was the leader this region needed. Iraq under Saddam was peaceful and tolerant of other believes. Justice was cruel, but somewhat just if you understand the context.

  72. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you want a software engineer/cryptologist/scientist dead instead of a crazy guy with a gun ramming the gates of a secure facility? You're a moron.

  73. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    Coincidentally, I ran across an interesting Wikipedia article on self-deception the other day. It's always been interesting to me to ponder to what extent characters such as the ones you name are acting morally within "morality" as they define it, or if they're purely wielding power for its own sake. I suspect that it's a little of both in nearly every case. For example, I just saw part of an old interview with the late founder of Singapore, who more-or-less said that he was "trying to do the best for his people" along the lines expressed higher above.

    The ISIS caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a more recent example. I suspect that he at least partly genuinely believes that all the terrible things that ISIS does are "moral" and "right". Of course, he probably also enjoys the power and takes smug satisfaction every time he watches one of the resulting propaganda videos of some act that the vast majority of other human beings on the planet would instinctively see as immoral.

    All that is distinct from pure psychopathy, which does not involve any consideration of morality because the true psychopath's mind doesn't work that way.

  74. Anyone posting here live in the D.C. area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if you do, like I do, then you KNOW that certain roads that aren't properly marked are what we call "honey pot" roads to both the NSA and the CIA. And there's no exit off of them back to the main road. I can easily see this as a mistake of local citizens accidentally making a wrong turn, and then ending up at that gate, immediately surrounded by armed trigger happy guards. I almost made that mistake myself.

    There's something seriously f--ked up when the NSA and CIA set up roads, with no signs, that have you already inside their territory at the gate, with no way to turn around. I can see someone panicking and turning to drive out and getting shot up. And with GPS these days taking you down strange roads, I can definitely see this as the actual situation that resulted in the shooting. Everytime I pass that on ramp, you know that road is watched with more cameras and snipers than an Iraqi town.

    Bad enough the CIA and NSA do all kinds of shit to citizens nationwide. But this is what they do to LOCALS!

    1. Re:Anyone posting here live in the D.C. area? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Actually it was cross dressing locals. I wonder what it says about the places NSA staff go to eat out?

  75. Re: News for nerds by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

    Conversely it might exhonerate you entirely because once its established you were driving you have an alibi for your movements the entire way.

  76. Cross Dressers Attack NSA? by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    One has to do something pretty messed up to piss those people off.

    And another thing, with all the target practice; NSA missed? Or was the other cross dresser that stunning?

  77. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by blue9steel · · Score: 2

    If you think that Saddam or Bennito or Idi or Fidel thought they were doing the best for their people, you are sadly mistaken.

    They just had a narrower definition of "their people" than you seem to be using.

  78. Re:News for nerds by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    DoubleTap!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  79. Why dressed as women? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    What I can't figure out is why they though dressing in drag would help whatever they were doing. If you don't have the right credentials, being a woman is not going to help, and being a really suspiciously manly woman will help even less. Unless your face is personally known to them all you are doing is risking drawing even more scrutiny on yourself for literally no benefit.

  80. Re: News for nerds by BlueTrin · · Score: 1

    I don't get it

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  81. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ed snowden is the apple.

    FTFY

  82. Re: News for nerds by slew · · Score: 1

    Ed snowden is the new snake.

    FTFY^2

  83. Re: I hope it was an NSA Agent by BlueTrin · · Score: 2

    I think we can all agree that Bush and Rumsfeld were the worst thing that happened to Iraqis.

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  84. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure here, the apple is the leaked information, Snowden is Adam, and the NSA is both the snake and God watching the whole thing go down.

  85. Re: I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No reports of anyone with a gun (other than guards). Just a couple of dudes dressed as women, ramming a roadblock. Like you do.

    PS this ruined rush hour /in the afternoon/, hours after this incident took place. *facepalm*

  86. Here's what Slashdoters really want to know: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were the men who dressed as women wearing pantyhose?

  87. Disppointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping it was about some pissed off Americans that felt this was the only way to stop NSA: go in guns blazing, exercising their patriotic duty and to dismantle government that has over extended its reach.

  88. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was for the two males, dressed as women, who attempted penetration.

  89. Re: I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agency is the idea that you are obligated to put the interests of your employer above your own. Hence, real estate agent vs broker. Lawyers are by definition agents. NSA has agents, whether or not they choose to call them such.

  90. Re: I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ask anyone from cuba about castro and they will tell you all about it.. it is bad and americans take so much for granted and view things differently.. imagine being a doctor and making 40$ a month.. only given 5lb of rice per family member a month from the govt.. or a farmer or a lobster fisherman who has to sell their goods to a govt for pennys who then turns around and sells the same lobster for current us tourist rates for profit.. the only way people survive is via a black market, selling their goods for the same prices below what the govt does or providing side work, ie, "illegal" services while still maintaining a govt job.. which is a crime.. most people still build their own homes.. just view the tons of youtube videos of immigrants doing some of the most extreme things just to cross such a small part of the ocean into the united states.. which is a crime.. they tell you in cuba that capitalism is evil, we grow our own food for "our people" because if we import from the capitalists they will poison the food..

  91. Darwin Award? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely a Darwin award winner.

    I grew up on US military bases, but haven't had an ID for 20+ yrs. The gate guards are nice folks, but don't be confused. They have a job and they will do it. There are gates with slightly touchier guards inside the base too. As a kid, we often found those places (think "Christmas tree" http://www.globalsecurity.org/... ) on our bikes about 100m from alert bombers loaded with nuclear weapons.

    I think of all the times I've hopped the fence at different USAF bases trying to get to or from school rather than walk the extra mile to go through the gate. As a 7-10 yr old, I don't think there was much risk. Never heard of any kid being harmed for doing it. Around 12 yrs old, Dad had the talk about hopping the fence and being shot. Everyone my age stopped.

  92. Re: News for nerds by davester666 · · Score: 1

    No, because that's not how it works.

    It's not exculpatory if your car is elsewhere at the time in question, as you may not be driving it, so the prosecutor can ignore it, but if it shows you are at the right location at the time in question, then it is strong circumstantial evidence that you are guilty.

    And remember, the concept that there is no reason/benefit for a prosecutor to imprison an innocent person is entirely false. Prosecutors/district attorneys are ONLY hired/voted in/given raises/promoted by prosecuting people and having them convicted. Any time or effort spent on a so-called "innocent" person is entirely wasted [same with police]. Once you are a suspect, they are extremely motivated to make sure you remain the suspect and are convicted.

    Also, there is remarkably little downside for them to convict an innocent person. If the person's lawyer eventually gets the conviction overturned, that typically is years and years later, and evidence of who did what is easily lost or misplaced, people have moved on to other jobs or other cities. Normally, the city will pay some token amount and it's over. Only the MOST egregious case of frame job will result in some kind of penalty for the prosecutor or police officer.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  93. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by AntiSol · · Score: 1

    To respond to your soapbox, I refer you to Clerks:

    Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
    Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
    Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
    Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
    Randal: Like when?
    Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
    Dante: Whose house was it?
    Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's.
    Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
    Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
    Dante: Based on personal politics.
    Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
    Randal: No way!
    Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.

    (source)

    I'm not trying to say that everyone working for the NSA should be killed, but any NSA employee who hasn't quit their job since Snowden is on morally dubious ground at best, regardless of whether they're part of the elite hacking team, a security guard, a janitor, or a roofer.

  94. Botched Narco Delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the Obama Administration's Narcotics Delivery System is on TeeWee for all to see. Ha ha.

    Which packages in the van for "President", "Vice President", "Holdren", "White House Staff", "DHS", "DOE, "DOS" et al.

    Are the "Joint" Chief's named! You betcha.

    Wow! Righteous! No "wiggle room" for the President, No "Piss and Moan" room for POTUS, with a kilo of Cocaine with his name on it!

    Ha ha

  95. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their charter is to gather and analyze information for other branches of government (such as the CIA), not to act on it themselves.

    Source? Their "charter" is "do anything not disallowed" per my sources.

  96. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    Likewise, ISIS views all infidels as being on morally dubious grounds. They've beheaded a few Westerners to serve as an example, presumably in an effort to improve the morality of both the specific Westerners in question (who, admittedly did nothing immoral whatsoever after losing their heads), as well as infidels as a whole.

    However, I can't say that my own morality has improved much as a result of those beheadings - either in terms of my own personal values or the values of ISIS. Do you happen to be an infidel, like me? If so, maybe the ISIS beheadings of the few random Westerners that ISIS happened to get a hold of have had a better effect on your morality than they've had on mine. Those folks mostly were aid workers, but maybe they would have become Death Star roofers in the future if given half a chance.

    Anyway, I sometimes wonder who died and left ISIS in charge of morality. Likewise for Edward Snowden. Don't we all have some form of morality that someone else would regard as dubious?

    (BTW, maybe we should amend Godwin's Law to include ISIS. ;-)

  97. That's what you get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for stealing the NSA's cocaine.

  98. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they even had a "plan" going in, I'd imagine it was made with crayons and construction paper. Maybe a couple toilet paper tubes and some elmer's glue if they decided to get extra fancy.

    Apparently the crayon plan worked, because they were ALREADY INSIDE (for an undetermined amount of time) and were trying to LEAVE.

    We do not know how long they had been there, and we also do not know if they had brought the yay-o with them on site or if they had acquired it there.

  99. NSA has Agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure they use that specific term, but they definitely have people in covert roles. I won't go into details, but they usually pay in paper bags full of cash and usually have design specs that violate the DMCA.

  100. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Tom Hudson.

  101. Re:I hope it was an NSA Agent by AntiSol · · Score: 1

    haha, godwins law might indeed need updating. ;)

    I totally am not an infidel! May his noodly appendage strike down any who think I am!

    You do make a good point and I did see it the first time around, I was mostly kinda sorta just playing devils advocate. I do totally agree with you that celebrating the killing of innocents (or, indeed, anyone) is not something that should happen. For example, my first reaction when I heard that Osama Bin Laden was killed was: "No trial huh?", and I found the images of people celebrating sickening. I'm no fan of the man, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere that everybody has a right to trial and due process. Hell, even the Nazis got trials. And now we're firmly in godwin's territory!

    I guess it comes down to the good old "what is truth" question really. IMHO my opinion is right, and I do believe that anyone still working at the NSA should quit their job and go do something less morally questionable (like prostitution or selling drugs). But that's just my (correct) opinion, and I wouldn't advocate killing any of those people, or indeed doing anything to them other than dismantling their employer via due process or trying to convince them to quit their jobs. I didn't take philosophy, so I don't know if there is any "universal morality" which really does apply everywhere. It would seem to me that not killing people over beliefs should be a universally-accepted kind of thing. But then I tend to have high expectations. Maybe we can get a philosophy-type person to chime in?

    As I said, you do raise a good point and I commend you for wondering such things, if only there were a couple of billion more like you.

    Mostly, though, I just wanted to quote clerks, it seemed appropriate ;)