Where are the Apologies?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Debunked! Ok the audio/video/recon sources.. why do they need to be protected, i am generally curious and would like to know? Yeah these images of Mustafa Bin TerrorG came from the camera of a spyplane. where is the protection there? If Mustafa Bin TerrorG doesn't know that we know his location, or that we are keeping a particularly close eye on him, he certainly will after pictures of him are made public won't he? Think he might change some of the things he's doing? Should we tell him he's being an idiot and that he needs to act more covertly if he's going to be a long-lived international terrorist? Are we suppose to help him out? Don't you think other terrorists might just start avoiding Mustafa because he's a security risk? Maybe his operation will be shut down and/or transferred somewhere else, and we'll have wasted the last X number of years tracking him and have to start all over again. And all for what? To tell the public he is at location X, while giving him ample notice to vacate location X, so that the public will say your info must have been wrong when location X is visited? "Oh no this means that their are planes taking pictures hovering around up there!!!" Everyone already knows that. Someone pointed a whisper 2000 into the desert and picked up a soundbyte... we can't tell anyone that. The cel phone tapping: well anyone can have a scanner and listen to other peoples cel conversations.. a friend of mine has one and does it all the time.. unless the phone itself was literally bugged with a device. In which case that falls under the category of human spy. And that man/womans identity is in danger of being exposed by the small number of people theory.. What about a cell conversation they have encrypted, but we've broken? It happened all the time during the cold war both ways. You think your information is safe, so you talk allot thinking it's safe. Do you tell the other guy you broke his code? Of course lots of people pick up cell conversations, and people have been warned, but they still talk on them in the civilian world despite the warnings. Do you beat the enemy over the head with a stick and say stop telling secrets because we're listening, or do you let idiots do what idiots do? You keep falling back on the premise of the spy as an individual person, and not a network that touches many people along the information chain. You can believe that for every one person in a super sensitive group there are hundreds of people along the chain of information as it is transferred back and forth. Those people along the line probably work with more than one agent and exposing them exposes all. You can think it's a hat trick if you want, but highly coveted information gained through time consuming and costly espionage activities isn't something you give up for the nightly news. Of course Night Stalker i understand that intel communities dont want to reveal their sources be they human or technological. And that's great, that goes without saying. They dont have to reveal their sources. But they could reveal the information. ah.. but that would let others know about the sources, their data collection practices, and their processing of information procedures. Only if it was a human involved wouldn't it? If the information is revealed the enemy will know where the leak came from. To me that means it is a human on the other end. The enemy can't do anything about it if the info is coming from satelite reconassaince.. and it if it comes from satelite or spyplane images.. well.. it wouldnt be the first time and i dont know how that reveals anything about data analysis or collection? Believe it or not, it's your choice. How did the west know that Usama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan? It couldn't have been 'common knowledge'. Why in that instance was the information revealed and not in this one. After all both are dealing with Al Queda? Al-Queta training camps in the Middle East weren't exactly a big secret, and in the case of Afghanistan, the intent was to say we know you have him and you'd better turn him over. Since that government knew he was there and was hiding him in exchange for cash, alot of people knew, and if Osama wanted to kill everyone with the information, he would have needed to start with the One-Eyed Mullah who ran Afghanistan and worked his way down. I generally think that their is some inconsistency here with revealing intelligence and it is troubling imo if that is cassus belli. It is a paradox. IMO No human life is worth more than another. But either way if the info is valid and revealed or valid and not revealed.. it leads to war. And alot more people are going to die. If allot more people are going to die then it would sit more comfortably if we knew the truth of the matter. What exactly is troubling about you, as a private citizen, not being given complete and total access to the information you want to see? Governments are given the evidence and make their decisions based on it. Do you think there should be a referendum? George Bush said in his state of the union: "The history of the world will be determined by free men." To me that means the history of the world will NOT be decided behind closed doors. Really? You think you should have access to everything? The US government pays for Medicare with my tax dollars. Do I deserve to see each patients private medical records, so I, as a tax paying citizen, can decide if they get treatment or not? Does it matter what the doctor thinks? Why? Does it matter if the majority of doctors agree, but a few disagree? Shouldn't I get to make the final decision?

[ 02-13-2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Debunked! Ok the audio/video/recon sources.. why do they need to be protected, i am generally curious and would like to know? Yeah these images of Mustafa Bin TerrorG came from the camera of a spyplane. where is the protection there? If Mustafa Bin TerrorG doesn't know that we know his location, or that we are keeping a particularly close eye on him, he certainly will after pictures of him are made public won't he? Think he might change some of the things he's doing? Should we tell him he's being an idiot and that he needs to act more covertly if he's going to be a long-lived international terrorist? Are we suppose to help him out? Don't you think other terrorists might just start avoiding Mustafa because he's a security risk? Maybe his operation will be shut down and/or transferred somewhere else, and we'll have wasted the last X number of years tracking him and have to start all over again. And all for what? To tell the public he is at location X, while giving him ample notice to vacate location X, so that the public will say your info must have been wrong when location X is visited?

This is a great point!

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: "Oh no this means that their are planes taking pictures hovering around up there!!!" Everyone already knows that. Someone pointed a whisper 2000 into the desert and picked up a soundbyte... we can't tell anyone that. The cel phone tapping: well anyone can have a scanner and listen to other peoples cel conversations.. a friend of mine has one and does it all the time.. unless the phone itself was literally bugged with a device. In which case that falls under the category of human spy. And that man/womans identity is in danger of being exposed by the small number of people theory.. What about a cell conversation they have encrypted, but we've broken? It happened all the time during the cold war both ways. You think your information is safe, so you talk allot thinking it's safe. Do you tell the other guy you broke his code? Of course lots of people pick up cell conversations, and people have been warned, but they still talk on them in the civilian world despite the warnings. Do you beat the enemy over the head with a stick and say stop telling secrets because we're listening, or do you let idiots do what idiots do?

I didn't know that celluar transmissions could be encrypted!

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: You keep falling back on the premise of the spy as an individual person, and not a network that touches many people along the information chain. You can believe that for every one person in a super sensitive group there are hundreds of people along the chain of information as it is transferred back and forth. Those people along the line probably work with more than one agent and exposing them exposes all. You can think it's a hat trick if you want, but highly coveted information gained through time consuming and costly espionage activities isn't something you give up for the nightly news.

Another good point that it is indeed a network of people involved. Between Iraqi government and Al Queda their would have to be a chain of people passing communications back and forth between them. From somewhere along that chain is a leak. Just by virtue of the fact that their is some information that has been leaked. The people at the tops of those chains must be examining every link in that chain very closely. Perhaps even feeding disinformation to try to trace the source of the leak. I think that like you said a network of people are involved. But any intel that goes from 'them' to 'us' has to come through one specific person via one specific drop point imo. I can't see it being any other way.. perhaps a small group of people are filtering data out.. but still one person has to make the phone call. One person has to put the documents at a certain spot.. you are right i do keep focusing on one person.. i dont know why..

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Of course Night Stalker i understand that intel communities dont want to reveal their sources be they human or technological. And that's great, that goes without saying. They dont have to reveal their sources. But they could reveal the information. ah.. but that would let others know about the sources, their data collection practices, and their processing of information procedures. Only if it was a human involved wouldn't it? If the information is revealed the enemy will know where the leak came from. To me that means it is a human on the other end. The enemy can't do anything about it if the info is coming from satelite reconassaince.. and it if it comes from satelite or spyplane images.. well.. it wouldnt be the first time and i dont know how that reveals anything about data analysis or collection? Believe it or not, it's your choice.

I certainly hope so!

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: How did the west know that Usama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan? It couldn't have been 'common knowledge'. Why in that instance was the information revealed and not in this one. After all both are dealing with Al Queda? Al-Queta training camps in the Middle East weren't exactly a big secret, and in the case of Afghanistan, the intent was to say we know you have him and you'd better turn him over. Since that government knew he was there and was hiding him in exchange for cash, alot of people knew, and if Osama wanted to kill everyone with the information, he would have needed to start with the One-Eyed Mullah who ran Afghanistan and worked his way down.

It is true a lot of people knew in that instance and even Bill Clinton a couple years before had launched some missiles in his direction.. Yeah and that one was common knowledge for sure because thousands of people on his side knew where he was..

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: What exactly is troubling about you, as a private citizen, not being given complete and total access to the information you want to see? Governments are given the evidence and make their decisions based on it. Do you think there should be a referendum? What exactly is troubling about you, as a private citizen, not being given complete and total access to the information you want to see? Governments are given the evidence and make their decisions based on it. Do you think there should be a referendum?

No I don't think that their should be a referendum or that their it is troubling that certain info is left out of a private citizens hands. But when foreign government states that the info they heard on iraq al-queda links is not sufficient or totally circumstantial and the govt. that provided the info is saying it is total fact.. well their is a discrepancy there. One says it's good enough the other says it isn't. And if the final outcome is going to be a war.. well i would like the evidence to be total fact in everyones eyes.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: George Bush said in his state of the union: "The history of the world will be determined by free men." To me that means the history of the world will NOT be decided behind closed doors. Really? You think you should have access to everything? The US government pays for Medicare with my tax dollars. Do I deserve to see each patients private medical records, so I, as a tax paying citizen, can decide if they get treatment or not? Does it matter what the doctor thinks? Why? Does it matter if the majority of doctors agree, but a few disagree? Shouldn't I get to make the final decision?

Yes I should have access to everything! and you should get to make the final decision! I get your point here and it is a good one. Let the leaders make the big decisions as you would let your doctor make the medical ones. When the case is going to war, when your kids or neighbour or friend or brother or sister or cousin will be getting shot at or shooting at someone.. Then you have the right to know why.

[ 02-13-2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Night Stalker]

There's one thing you are missing though. People have friends. Countries have National Intrests.

Revealing information not only gives your sources, but your methods and technologies. That gives "them" the ability to develop their own similar methods and also counter methods. To use the US as an example, some of the countries that run huge espionage campains here are allies.

The Gulf War was a huge supprise to the world, allies included. And they even trained with us. This, to over simplify, is a deadly game of poker. You play with your cards close, and see if you can out bluff your opponent's bluff.

And to address Groj:
Yes, it is ironic. But the burden of proof does not lie with intel communities of the member nations under UN687 or UN1441. It lies with Iraq. Further, 687 clearly states that failure to comply will result in the cecession of the cease fire. The last round of inspections showed they were in breach (under the full complience clause) and this round did too. Now it is up to the UN to show if it is willing to enforce it's own resolutions, or become a defunct debate club.

edit: correct 627 to 687

[ 02-14-2003, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Ronn_Bman]

I had to trim our quotes a bit.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: This is a great point! Thanks, I was wondering if I was making any sense. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] I didn't know that celluar transmissions could be encrypted! They can be. Plain cordless phones for homes are actually encrypted(to a small degree) for privacy and offer multiply channels, although most I’ve had could still be picked up on scanners. I’m not a big "spy info" type guy though, so my point was less about the specifics of cell phone intercepts than about intercepts of all types that are picked up secretly. If they don’t know we’re listening, they are certainly more likely to say more than they want everyone to hear. you are right i do keep focusing on one person.. i dont know why.. I do see your point, but every agent has contacts, and those contacts have handlers, and those handlers have other contacts and agents that may or not be related to the initial contact. There are drops, but the people who pick them up don’t necessarily just go back to the embassy and call up headquarters. Some of the most sensitive information is probably deliver by hand, just in case someone's broken the code. It is a house of cards even though the single agent “inside” probably doesn’t know 99% of who else is involved along the chain. It’s like telling a secret, the more people who know the less likely it is to remain a secret. Very similar to the US or Soviets busting entire rings after singling out a single agent. It’s the exact same principle on a smaller scale. I don't think that their should be a referendum or that their it is troubling that certain info is left out of a private citizens hands. But when foreign government states that the info they heard on iraq al-queda links is not sufficient or totally circumstantial and the govt. that provided the info is saying it is total fact.. well their is a discrepancy there. One says it's good enough the other says it isn't. And if the final outcome is going to be a war.. well i would like the evidence to be total fact in everyones eyes. Waiting for complete unanimity isn’t always a good way to get things done. We’ll never have the evidence that will bring every single person around. Saddam isn’t going to believe the evidence even though he knew it was true before it was provided. The Iraqis deny things the UN Inspectors KNOW are true even today. Yes, there are some governments that aren’t completely convinced, and others who don't think the evidence justifies action, but the majority of nations don’t feel that way and are willing to act based on what they’ve seen. It isn’t the entire world saying that US intel is full of bull, nor the entire world that's ignoring what the UN's own inspectors have reported. It’s a few nations, some of whom have personal agendas which, on the surface at least, appear to conflict with believing the evidence provided. Let the leaders make the big decisions as you would let your doctor make the medical ones? When the case is going to war, when your kids or neighbor or friend or brother or sister or cousin will be getting shot at or shooting at someone.. Then you have the right to know why. I don’t think citizens should completely abdicate their responsibilities, and I’m not willing to let the government do anything it says is necessary. I try to look at the overall picture, and realize what I can and cannot competently evaluate. What do I need, verses what do I want or what would I like. Back to the Medicare analogy. If it’s my kid, neighbor, friend, brother, sister, or cousin who’s going to live or die based on the final decision, should I have the ability to override the doctors? What if I want them to make my grandfather live after he’s beyond their ability to sustain? Once it's obvious that life support is useless? What if I want to say your grandmother doesn’t need the medicine that sustains her life? How can I make those decisions without the education or experience needed? During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US offered photographic evidence to the UN that Wowed the world and embarrassed the Soviets. Those U2 photos showed the missiles and facilities that were being built. If you had showed them to me in 1963 without explaining what was being shown, I would have said, "what's that suppose to be?". I look at them today and see what they are talking about because it's been pointed out to me. Lots of the photos I still can't quite make out, but I'm willing to trust those who know and history itself. If I'd lived in those times, I could have easily said I didn't believe those were missiles, but I'd have been wrong.

As always DJ, excellent points. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-13-2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: There's one thing you are missing though. People have friends. Countries have National Intrests.

Yep, and taken straight out of Il Principe by Niccolo Machiavelli. It's how our world turns these days.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: There's one thing you are missing though. People have friends. Countries have National Intrests.

Yep, and taken straight out of Il Principe by Niccolo Machiavelli. It's how our world turns these days. [/QUOTE]It's strange because in the west we seem to place such high value on individualism among the people.. but on a higher level the needs of the whole outweigh the needs of the few.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Quote: Originally posted by Memnoch: Quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: There's one thing you are missing though. People have friends. Countries have National Intrests.

Yep, and taken straight out of Il Principe by Niccolo Machiavelli. It's how our world turns these days. [/QUOTE]It's strange because in the west we seem to place such high value on individualism among the people.. but on a higher level the needs of the whole outweigh the needs of the few.[/QUOTE]That Depends on whether you See Leaders as Acting for “the people” or themselves and their cronies.
Remember that Meachivelli’s the Prince Was about a dictator, not a Representative democratic leader.
Less than 48% IIRC of Total British voting population voted for Tony Blair and Labour, so he can’t really be said to have a popular mandate so for example in his case, he cannot really be said to be acting in the interests of the people of britian, Since he doesn't even have the majoirtys approval.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: It's strange because in the west we seem to place such high value on individualism among the people.. but on a higher level the needs of the whole outweigh the needs of the few.

Not really. It's a difference of scale. What works on a macro level, doesn't apply to a micro level, and vice versa. A study in Economics, Physics, or Social Science will show that.

It's the difference on how a group fuctions, vs how and individual functions.

[ 02-15-2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: What works on a macro level, doesn't apply to a micro level, and vice versa. It's the difference on how a group fuctions, vs how and individual functions.

Wasn't that the moral of the stories for Star Treks II & III?

[Night Stalker]

[img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]

I though the moral of Star Trek was to have sex with strikingly humaniod space aliens or get blown up by them....