Spying on foreign countries is feasible when there is an immediate threat.
Waiting until there is an "immediate threat" before building an intelligence apparatus isn't really feasible. Your statement is nonsense.
In a globalized world where most countries sort of "work together" and their borders become blurry (from an industrial point of view) it does more harm than good.
Because knowing about wars or impending wars, the results of natural disaster, or economic dangers isn't helpful in managing a nation's affairs?
Companies fear industry espionage and pull back or limit interaction with those "excessively spying" countries and that harms global economy which eventually boils down to every single one of us.
That doesn't seem to have stopped investment in China, does it? Everyone knows about problems of massive IP theft when dealing with China, either purely for sales, for manufacturing, and yet people keep selling, building, and developing in China. Similar things occur in other countries as well.
I think you have several ideas that sound good in theory, but don't match the actual reality much.
They intercepted a communication that somebody found oil in Saudi Arabia back in the 40s, and sent it to Shell, and they've been justifying their budget with the intelligence committee on the basis of "Industrial Espionage" every year since then.
So you're sure that the Soviet Union, Russia, China, Iran, and the rest had nothing to do with it? The Soviet an Russian fleets? The Soviet and Chinese nuclear missiles aimed at the US? The wars around the world? There isn't enough reason there for signal intelligence?
Even more, the Spanish Inquisition documented the same torture methods that the US Government classified as "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- but the Spanish Inquisition was in no doubt that the methods described were forms of torture.
I think I'm going to ask for some documentation on that. The "enhanced interrogation" methods used by the US were quite limited in nature. Coercive? Yes, but torture? Torture has specific legal meanings, and the US methods were specifically drawn to not constitute torture despite what any particular activists might claim. From what I have seen they may have been unpleasant, but didn't pose a genuine threat to life or limb as the methods of the Spanish Inquisition. Even "waterboarding" as it was performed, which was quite different from the Spanish practice, wasn't particularly dangerous even if very unpleasant. The US has waterboarded in the same manner what must easily be tens of thousands of its own Special Forces soldiers and pilots over the last 50 years. I don't think anybody is going to reasonably claim that it is actually torturing highly trained and valuable members of its own armed forces.
It's hard to say. It is pretty typical for the government to create a problem, and then someone proposes a big new government program to fix the problem that wouldn't exist if not for the government. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Obama ordered Gitmo closed on his first day in office. Congress overruled him.
So he failed at building consensus in the legislature to take action regarding a matter under their control - US military bases? I think you've been taken in by a bit of showmanship.
I think Slashdot has already covered that question: TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades . A hand grenade is a bomb, and TSA has kept both real and inert grenades off planes. I have little doubt there are more incidents of interest.
Were? You think things are better? Our government is executing Americans overseas without a trial(even an unfair one) now.
Do you think that's new? Many people forget that the US Federal government has killed Americans inside the US(!) that were in the exact same legal status of men like Anwar al-Awlaki , famous for his broadcasts. And it should be noted that the Federal government did it without arrest, charge, trial, conviction, sentence, or appeal. One of those incidents, in which the US government shot dead American citizens without trial in the same way they did al-Awlaki, and for much the same reason, is commerated here.
Why, because he'd probably prefer to take the 0.0000000001% chance that a bomb would go off on a plane (most likely with or without the TSA) while he's on it than have everyone's freedoms be violated by slimy, worthless government thugs?
How many armed robberies occur in police stations? Might you be one of those people that is baffled and troubled by increased incarceration rates while crime is falling? Proper security measures increase the risk of failure and detection for terrorists. We know they haven't lost interest in causing damage. Do you think there might possibly be a connection, that they might not want to undertake high risk operations highly likely to fail in achieving their goal? That results in a loss of personnel and resources for nothing that they consider gain. In fact failure is an embarrassment to them and damages recruiting efforts since it harms their reputation.
But violating people's rights in an effort to keep people safe isn't an injustice?
Which actual right, as defined in law as interpreted by the courts, is being violated? Or are you referring to just your own personal opinion?
You should read more attentively A., you are missing some key points.
If you read the story you find that the intelligence estimate is several years old (2011) and refers to domestic groups, not international terrorists.
From The Article:
“As of mid-2011, terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports; instead, their focus is on fundraising, recruiting, and propagandizing.”
In any event it appears that this information is outdated and no longer relevant given the recent reports from aircraft crews observing what they believe to be either probes of security or dry runs for attacks on planes.
An internal memo from the union representing US Airways pilots details a frightening incident that brings back memories of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, WTSP-TV in Tampa-St. Petersburg reports.
The US Airlines Pilots Association memo says "there have been several cases recently throughout the (airline) industry of what appear to be probes, or dry runs, to test our procedures and reaction to an in-flight threat."
The pilots say the most recent dry run occurred on Flight 1880 on Sept. 2.
"Bringing down an airliner continues to be the Gold Standard of terrorism," states the undated memo, first reported by WTSP-TV in Tampa-St. Petersburg. "If anyone thinks that our enemies have “been there, done that” and are not targeting U.S. commercial aviation -- think again."...
According to the memo, the pilot of a subsequent, return flight bearing the same flight number, 1880, ordered an inspection of the plane after eight women in burkas showed up at the boarding gate. The memo claims that "evidence of tampering was found," though it does not elaborate.
One expert speculated that the efforts may have been aimed at sizing up security procedures and spotting air marshals aboard flights....
Experts said the incident could be an indication of another attempt to detonate a bomb aboard an airplane while midflight. Ret. Col. Mike Pheneger, former director of intelligence at Special Operations Command, said it’s “impossible” to absolutely prevent terrorist attacks.
"We can only make it more difficult for people to attack an airplane or a facility,” he said. “We can't make it impossible. We have to be lucky 100 percent of the time and they only have to be lucky once."
As to the fund raising, some of it is no doubt related to cigarette smuggling.
It has been well-reported that terrorist and criminal organizations are conducting illicit business operations within the United States, sending the profits overseas to finance domestic and international terrorist and criminal organizations. Recent law enforcement investigations have revealed that those profits, estimated to be in the millions of dollars annually in the United States alone, are generated in part by illicit cigarette trafficking.... Recent law enforcement investigations, however, have directly linked those involved in illicit tobacco trade to infamous terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda.
The world hasn't "moved on," it is simply not paying attention.... again.
The Russians and Chinese are keeping very quiet about their intelligence on world leaders, as well as everything else. Since Snowden apparently didn't bother to bring copies of documents on what is know about them we probably won't hear much about it.
What gave it away? Sloppy work 'cause nobody gives a fuck anymore. Why bother hiding that you're spying on the people after you noticed that, hey, the people don't care?
Wouldn't you feel a bit let down? I mean, think about it, you spend resources, time and energy on hiding that you're essentially putting your citizens under total surveillance, you enjoy how you manage to deceive and fool your population, only to notice that the main reason it worked was that nobody gives a shit?
In 1947 a loaf of bread in the UK cost 1.9 pence, and 12 cents in the US.
I understand those prices are no longer available.
Post WW2 defense spending in constant 2005 dollars didn't rise above 1968 levels, when the US had a large force fighting to preserve South Vietnamese independence, until 2008 when it had major forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and surged additional forces to each country in turn. The current trend in defense spending is for falling budgets with the FY 2014 budget essentially at 1968 levels ($518B vs $519B) and is planned to fall sharply in FY 2015 and going forward. The overall long term trend of decreasing resources spent on defense in terms of GDP doesn't really change, and in constant 2005 dollars it is planned to decrease substantially from present spending. As another indicator, defense spending in 1945 was 89.5% of Federal spending, in 2014 it is 16.6%. If US Federal spending is a burden, it clearly isn't defense that is the real weight.
Try again. NATO's agreement is for NATO members, not the entire world. And you may have noted that Asian countries are outspending Europe. Terrorism isn't the only reason for defense. You may recall that European countries tried to intervene in Libya, and had significant difficulties doing so. Some of that problem was lost capabilities due to not meeting their defense commitments.
If you want to know what expensive is, just let Iran cut off Europe's oil supplies, as they have previously threatened to do, and see what happens if Europe lacks the capacity to restore the them. How long do you think industry, manufacturing, and the chemical industries will be unaffected? It would have a severe impact on Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Spying on foreign countries is feasible when there is an immediate threat.
Waiting until there is an "immediate threat" before building an intelligence apparatus isn't really feasible. Your statement is nonsense.
In a globalized world where most countries sort of "work together" and their borders become blurry (from an industrial point of view) it does more harm than good.
Because knowing about wars or impending wars, the results of natural disaster, or economic dangers isn't helpful in managing a nation's affairs?
Companies fear industry espionage and pull back or limit interaction with those "excessively spying" countries and that harms global economy which eventually boils down to every single one of us.
That doesn't seem to have stopped investment in China, does it? Everyone knows about problems of massive IP theft when dealing with China, either purely for sales, for manufacturing, and yet people keep selling, building, and developing in China. Similar things occur in other countries as well.
I think you have several ideas that sound good in theory, but don't match the actual reality much.
They intercepted a communication that somebody found oil in Saudi Arabia back in the 40s, and sent it to Shell, and they've been justifying their budget with the intelligence committee on the basis of "Industrial Espionage" every year since then.
So you're sure that the Soviet Union, Russia, China, Iran, and the rest had nothing to do with it? The Soviet an Russian fleets? The Soviet and Chinese nuclear missiles aimed at the US? The wars around the world? There isn't enough reason there for signal intelligence?
Even more, the Spanish Inquisition documented the same torture methods that the US Government classified as "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- but the Spanish Inquisition was in no doubt that the methods described were forms of torture.
I think I'm going to ask for some documentation on that. The "enhanced interrogation" methods used by the US were quite limited in nature. Coercive? Yes, but torture? Torture has specific legal meanings, and the US methods were specifically drawn to not constitute torture despite what any particular activists might claim. From what I have seen they may have been unpleasant, but didn't pose a genuine threat to life or limb as the methods of the Spanish Inquisition. Even "waterboarding" as it was performed, which was quite different from the Spanish practice, wasn't particularly dangerous even if very unpleasant. The US has waterboarded in the same manner what must easily be tens of thousands of its own Special Forces soldiers and pilots over the last 50 years. I don't think anybody is going to reasonably claim that it is actually torturing highly trained and valuable members of its own armed forces.
It's hard to say. It is pretty typical for the government to create a problem, and then someone proposes a big new government program to fix the problem that wouldn't exist if not for the government. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
End of November ... Sounds like a lot of mythical man-months to me.
They've got an out. The article doesn't say what year that November is in.
War requires nation-states. We are not at war.
The US is engaged in an armed military conflict with al Qaida. You wouldn't deny that, would you?
Killing people fighting with the enemy isn't really a problem.
Obama ordered Gitmo closed on his first day in office. Congress overruled him.
So he failed at building consensus in the legislature to take action regarding a matter under their control - US military bases? I think you've been taken in by a bit of showmanship.
The facts are still the facts.
I think Slashdot has already covered that question: TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades . A hand grenade is a bomb, and TSA has kept both real and inert grenades off planes. I have little doubt there are more incidents of interest.
Were? You think things are better? Our government is executing Americans overseas without a trial(even an unfair one) now.
Do you think that's new? Many people forget that the US Federal government has killed Americans inside the US(!) that were in the exact same legal status of men like Anwar al-Awlaki , famous for his broadcasts. And it should be noted that the Federal government did it without arrest, charge, trial, conviction, sentence, or appeal. One of those incidents, in which the US government shot dead American citizens without trial in the same way they did al-Awlaki, and for much the same reason, is commerated here.
Claiming that requiring people to take off their shoes once before boarding a plane is a movement down the "slippery slope" to genocide is ludicrous.
Genocide was legal under the Nazis. Mere legality is not a suitable way of determining rights.
Well that's it then, requiring people to take off their shoes one extra time a day is the first step on the path to genocide. Who knew?
Modding down facts doesn't change them.
Why, because he'd probably prefer to take the 0.0000000001% chance that a bomb would go off on a plane (most likely with or without the TSA) while he's on it than have everyone's freedoms be violated by slimy, worthless government thugs?
How many armed robberies occur in police stations? Might you be one of those people that is baffled and troubled by increased incarceration rates while crime is falling? Proper security measures increase the risk of failure and detection for terrorists. We know they haven't lost interest in causing damage. Do you think there might possibly be a connection, that they might not want to undertake high risk operations highly likely to fail in achieving their goal? That results in a loss of personnel and resources for nothing that they consider gain. In fact failure is an embarrassment to them and damages recruiting efforts since it harms their reputation.
But violating people's rights in an effort to keep people safe isn't an injustice?
Which actual right, as defined in law as interpreted by the courts, is being violated? Or are you referring to just your own personal opinion?
You should read more attentively A., you are missing some key points.
If you read the story you find that the intelligence estimate is several years old (2011) and refers to domestic groups, not international terrorists.
From The Article:
“As of mid-2011, terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports; instead, their focus is on fundraising, recruiting, and propagandizing.”
In any event it appears that this information is outdated and no longer relevant given the recent reports from aircraft crews observing what they believe to be either probes of security or dry runs for attacks on planes.
Pilots union warns of possible terrorism 'dry runs'
An internal memo from the union representing US Airways pilots details a frightening incident that brings back memories of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, WTSP-TV in Tampa-St. Petersburg reports.
The US Airlines Pilots Association memo says "there have been several cases recently throughout the (airline) industry of what appear to be probes, or dry runs, to test our procedures and reaction to an in-flight threat."
The pilots say the most recent dry run occurred on Flight 1880 on Sept. 2.
Pilots union warns of 'dry run' by possible terrorists on US flight
"Bringing down an airliner continues to be the Gold Standard of terrorism," states the undated memo, first reported by WTSP-TV in Tampa-St. Petersburg. "If anyone thinks that our enemies have “been there, done that” and are not targeting U.S. commercial aviation -- think again." ...
According to the memo, the pilot of a subsequent, return flight bearing the same flight number, 1880, ordered an inspection of the plane after eight women in burkas showed up at the boarding gate. The memo claims that "evidence of tampering was found," though it does not elaborate.
One expert speculated that the efforts may have been aimed at sizing up security procedures and spotting air marshals aboard flights. ...
Experts said the incident could be an indication of another attempt to detonate a bomb aboard an airplane while midflight. Ret. Col. Mike Pheneger, former director of intelligence at Special Operations Command, said it’s “impossible” to absolutely prevent terrorist attacks.
"We can only make it more difficult for people to attack an airplane or a facility,” he said. “We can't make it impossible. We have to be lucky 100 percent of the time and they only have to be lucky once."
As to the fund raising, some of it is no doubt related to cigarette smuggling.
Tobacco and Terror: How Cigarette Smuggling is Funding our Enemies Abroad (.pdf)
It has been well-reported that terrorist and criminal organizations are conducting illicit business operations within the United States, sending the profits overseas to finance domestic and international terrorist and criminal organizations. Recent law enforcement investigations have revealed that those profits, estimated to be in the millions of dollars annually in the United States alone, are generated in part by illicit cigarette trafficking. ... Recent law enforcement investigations, however, have directly linked those involved in illicit tobacco trade to infamous terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda.
The world hasn't "moved on," it is simply not paying attention.... again.
You have slave mentality. The injustice is anyone having to take off his shoes at all.
You have a suicidal mentality. The injustice is bombs on planes.
Don't worry, facts are still facts even when you don't read them.
The Russians and Chinese are keeping very quiet about their intelligence on world leaders, as well as everything else. Since Snowden apparently didn't bother to bring copies of documents on what is know about them we probably won't hear much about it.
What gave it away? Sloppy work 'cause nobody gives a fuck anymore. Why bother hiding that you're spying on the people after you noticed that, hey, the people don't care?
Wouldn't you feel a bit let down? I mean, think about it, you spend resources, time and energy on hiding that you're essentially putting your citizens under total surveillance, you enjoy how you manage to deceive and fool your population, only to notice that the main reason it worked was that nobody gives a shit?
You're quite mistaken. Somebody cares.
In FY 1968 defense spending of $518 billion in 2005 dollars accounted for 9.4% of a GDP of $3,993 billion, and 46% of the Federal budget.
In FY 2014 defense spending of $519 billion in 2005 dollars accounts for 3.7% of a GDP of $14,113 billion, 16.6% of the Federal budget.
As of FY 2014 defense spending has already started to fall, and will be falling sharping over the next several years.
Sorry, but those are the facts (subject to change in case of war or natural disaster).
Where's the new part...
The increasing cumulative affect as new technologies are developed, accumulate, and interact.
In 1947 a loaf of bread in the UK cost 1.9 pence, and 12 cents in the US.
I understand those prices are no longer available.
Post WW2 defense spending in constant 2005 dollars didn't rise above 1968 levels, when the US had a large force fighting to preserve South Vietnamese independence, until 2008 when it had major forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and surged additional forces to each country in turn. The current trend in defense spending is for falling budgets with the FY 2014 budget essentially at 1968 levels ($518B vs $519B) and is planned to fall sharply in FY 2015 and going forward. The overall long term trend of decreasing resources spent on defense in terms of GDP doesn't really change, and in constant 2005 dollars it is planned to decrease substantially from present spending. As another indicator, defense spending in 1945 was 89.5% of Federal spending, in 2014 it is 16.6%. If US Federal spending is a burden, it clearly isn't defense that is the real weight.
Try again. NATO's agreement is for NATO members, not the entire world. And you may have noted that Asian countries are outspending Europe. Terrorism isn't the only reason for defense. You may recall that European countries tried to intervene in Libya, and had significant difficulties doing so. Some of that problem was lost capabilities due to not meeting their defense commitments.
If you want to know what expensive is, just let Iran cut off Europe's oil supplies, as they have previously threatened to do, and see what happens if Europe lacks the capacity to restore the them. How long do you think industry, manufacturing, and the chemical industries will be unaffected? It would have a severe impact on Europe.
You've apparently sprung a leak, you should attend to that.
Defense spending has in no way been trending down, as your dishonestly trying to imply by comparing to GDP
You may recall your previous statement.