Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Posted by samzenpus on from the breaking-news dept.

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.

9 of 308 comments (clear)

  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?

  2. 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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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]