The Shadow Factory 157
brothke writes "The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America is the third of James Bamford's trilogy. Bamford started this with The Puzzle Palace in 1982 and Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency in 2001. The Shadow Factory is likely the last book Bamford will find the NSA cooperative to, given his often harsh treatment of the agency and its directors. It is also doubtful that former NSA Director Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden will grant Bamford additional dinner invitations, given his portrayal of Hayden as a weakling who could not stand up to Dick Cheney and other in the Bush administration." Read below for the rest of Ben's review.
The book can be summed up with two basic themes: The top management of the NSA and CIA has not made the fundamental changes needed post 9/11, as the politicking and inter-agency squabbles are seemingly alive and well. Bamford's other premise continues to be his contempt towards Israel.
| The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America | |
| author | James Bamford |
| pages | 416 |
| publisher | Doubleday |
| rating | When sticking to facts: 9. When digressing: 2 |
| reviewer | Ben Rothke |
| ISBN | 0385521324 |
| summary | Good overview of the NSA post-9/11, but some of the author's biases get in the way |
Often bands produce abysmal releases in order to fulfill contractual requirements. In some ways, The Shadow Factory is reminiscent of that; at almost half the size of Body of Secrets, and 2/3 the size of The Puzzle Palace. When the book sticks to the facts and avoids conspiracy theories, it is a fascinating read.
If nothing else, Bamford knows how to turn often mundane aspects of wiretapping and supercomputers into a gripping read. Divided into five interwoven sections, the book starts out with a fascinating account of how two of the 9/11 hijackers lived the American dream, all the while planning their devious acts. Had there been some semblance of interagency cooperation and shared databases, Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi would have been identified in seconds.
Not only that, in the book, Bamford writes that many of the 9/11 terrorists set-up shop within miles of the NSA headquarters in Maryland, communicated with their counterparts in the Middle East, at the same time the NSA was searching the world over for them. Bamford makes the NSA seem like the keystone cops searching for these terrorists, while they were literally a par 5 away.
A number of the chapters details the Bush administration forays into its illegal wiretapping adventures and how Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card manipulated a sick and barely lucid Attorney General John Ashcroft into signing on to the program.
It has long been known that Bamford has no love lost for Israel. His previous books have incorrectly written of the details around Israel's attack of the Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship, which was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea during the Six-Day War.
The book details how Israeli high-tech data mining and surveillance companies such as Comverse, Verint, NICE and more have become indispensable to the US intelligence community. Bamford asserts that the vast majority of surveillance of telephone transmissions are done via technology from Israeli companies. He then makes the jump that the American intelligence community is placing itself as risk and that the Israeli companies will access this same information.
Such conspiracy theories are tired and old. For the longest time, there were claims that every Check Point FireWall-1 had a backdoor which the Mosad could tap into. Some years ago, the NSA even sent out a memo denying that fact, as it was getting in the way of firewall deployments at the agency.
As to Bamford's assertion of Israeli control of American intelligence, it makes great fodder for the conspiracy theory community, but lacks any sort of real evidence. What Bamford does is show that many of the founders of these companies are graduates of programs from the Israeli military, served in the same intelligence corps unit and therefore, guilty by some sort of association.
Irrespective of Bamford's deep hostility towards Israel, there is not the slightest indication that the American intelligence community was forced to purchase these Israeli products. They purchased these due to their superior capabilities produced by one of its closest allies. What Bamford fails to mention, is that Israeli and US intelligence groups have a long history of mutual cooperation. Much of the US success in its war against terror and monitoring of Iran are only due to help from Israel.
If the Shadow Factory is meant to be a critique of the NSA, then Bamford's unsubstantiated allegations about Israel and the Mosad show the agency to be a bastion of utter incompetency. Irrespective of problems with management at the NSA, it is utterly incredulous that the Mosad could single-handedly undermine the entire US intelligence effort, filling it with back doors and secret agents.
Bamford seems to be confused on his approach to the NSA. On one side, the NSA are the smartest guys in the room, successfully, surreptitiously and often illegally monitoring nearly every telephone call on the planet. They push supercomputers to the envelope and optimize ever CPU cycle. Yet simultaneously, these smart guys are simply pawns of a small group of Israeli intelligence agents who have managed to develop and get their software on various NSA projects.
In his review of the book in the New York Times, Christopher Dickey sums it up best when he writes of Bamford's habit of such conspiracy theories that "it's a fair bet that Bamford will find a way to work the bloodbath at the Taj Mahal hotel into the long NSA narrative that he began with "The Puzzle Palace" in 1982, followed up with "Body of Secrets" in 2001, and may well continue with paperback updates and further sequels after the present book. These are the kinds of details, or coincidences, that Bamford loves. In "The Shadow Factory" he piles one on top of another — events, addresses, room numbers — in a slapped-together text that often blends facts with speculation to evoke a pervasive atmosphere of conspiracy".
When Bamford is able to stick to the facts, which is about 2/3 of the book, he paints a frightening picture of the threats that the US is facing. Equally frightening was the response of the Bush administrations to the threats and attacks, which in some cases turned mince meat out of the Constitution. Bamford writes of Dick Cheney's attempt to give the President significant more control, while ignoring the need for separation of powers. There are many other such instances in the book. Yet when Bamford takes off his hat of reason and attempts to connect invisible dots, Christopher Dickey's observation should be kept in mind.
Seemingly on the brink of failure, the events of 9/11 recycled the NSA. For the astute reader who is able to discern between fact and fiction, The Shadow Factory is a fascinating read into an agency that still exists in the shadows. With a budget larger than the GDP of some countries, and a workforce that spans the globe, the NSA has long existed and thrived in the shadows that Bamford often describes so well.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
terrible review (Score:3, Interesting)
A review that tries to debunk the conspiracy theories set out in the book... pretty lame.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why is it lame?
The book is not advertised as a set of badly researched lies, so it's up to the reviewer to let us know how it fares. Preferably before anyone who likes factual books wastes their money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The reviewer is unabashedly pro-Israel (Zionist, probably), so excuse me if I take his criticism of Bramford's book with a huge grain of salt. Beside, there have been other members of the intelligence community that have gone on record criticizing the US reliance on Israeli intelligence in the Middle East, so it's hardly all conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't get the impression that the reviewer was pro-Israel, merely that he was asking for some kind of evidence of the book's claims.
Anyway, the last few huge failures of American intelligence have come from their arrogant ignoring of warnings from foreign intelligence agencies, and their refusal to share what little they do have.
(See 119 disaster and political use of SIGINT to prevent Guantanamo revelations in the UK)
Re: (Score:1)
911? Inside job. Why were these guys in MD? Proximity to their handlers.
Threats we face are terrifying? That's what they told Winston Smith.
Ben Rothke? I suppose it is anti-semitic to draw attention to his affiliation.
Re: (Score:2)
What is 119 disaster? Is there a 120 coming up next or something?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but what is 'AC'?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anonymous Coward, usually a Digger who wandered onto Slashdot and decided to start a fight.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Air Conditioning
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Money? Who said anything about money???
Go get it from PirateBay. Save your money for women and computer hardware and property.
Re:terrible review (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem with all conspiracy theories - you have to simultaneously portray the conspirators as both genius masterminds and utterly incompetent idiots. Conspiracy theorists are incapable of recognizing their own cognitive dissonance from embracing both viewpoints.
I always find it amusing that the same brilliant government overlords who are supposedly micromanaging every detail of our lives can't seem to even get the mail delivered reliably, or a single branch of the government running efficiently, or even bother to cover up the most blatant evidence of their supposed plots.
Re:terrible review (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In the spirit of embracing both viewpoints, have you considered that a lack of efficiency in government is no mistake? One could speculate that the government is as it is simply to ensure their own success. Not saying I think this, but it is the other side of your argument I suppose.
That's absolutely true, but it doesn't usually happen the way you think it does.
Most of the time, no one sets out to do that. It's rare that anyone plots and plans to have government become a self-feeding, self-justifying answer to the problems that it either created or had a hand in creating or could have easily prevented. Yet, this happens all the time. It's not just government. Anyone and anything that wants to rule you has to get you to depend on them first, typically by catering to your weaknes
Re: (Score:2)
Personal responsibility is all well and good, but the purpose of SS is not to coddle old people. Just living off SS income is not very fun. It's not that much money.
We have SS for a number of reasons. It's a form of insurance. What if you become disabled through injury or illness before you've saved a significant amount? Also, having SS to fall back on prevents us from having an increasingly large amount of destitute old people. Yes, it *would* be better if they had saved for retirement, but since the
Re:terrible review (Score:5, Funny)
I always find it amusing that the same brilliant government overlords who are supposedly micromanaging every detail of our lives can't seem to even get the mail delivered reliably, or a single branch of the government running efficiently, or even bother to cover up the most blatant evidence of their supposed plots.
They just do that to make you think they are incompetent. Otherwise we'd figure out the truth about 9/11 (Israeli cruise missiles), the JFK assassination (Vice President Johnson) and TWA Flight 800 (shot down by the US Navy).
Re:terrible review (Score:5, Funny)
Hah! Show's what you know. JFK was assassinated by a cruise missile being remotely piloted by Oswald on board TWA Flight 800 piloted by Johnson while on the way to Israel to pick up the Ark of the Covenant from the Illuminati. Don't you see?! The pieces all fit!
Conspiracies do happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a good list at the end of the wikipedia article on "proven" conspiracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory [wikipedia.org]
Governments are made of people. who are capable of brilliant maneuvers and colossal fuckups. If you read about Operation AJAX, you'll discover that fewer than 100 people overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s. This was due to their access to american political influence and funding from the CIA. Similarly, you can read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer, and learn how a handful of dogmatic lawyers, with no qualifying experience in Islamic terrorism, international law, or even basic politics were able to dictate our policies on torture for 7 years. The thing with concentrations of power, outside of public view, is that it will lead to conspiracy, unless you believe that people don't act in their own interest. They absolutely do, and those in power are no different.
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the FBI denied that they were targeting civil rights political leaders for assassination, but the revelation provided by the COINTELPRO documents provided proof that they not only did that, but actively infiltrated and subverted any organization thought to pose a threat to the existing "social order" of the United States. The CIA are the world leaders in terrorist planning, conducting operations from Latin America, to Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Lots of secret organizations do lots of bad things, and those are just the "known" groups in the United States. Consider countries like China and Russia and the Middle East, and I'm sure you can give yourself a nightmare without much imagination.
To paraphrase Baudelaire, the greatest trick the conspirators have ever pulled is convincing the public that they don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that conspiracy theories are not only unproveable but unfalsifiable. They may occasionally be true, but then so may $RELIGIOUS_TEXT_YOU_DONT_BELIEVE occasionally be true. Sometimes real evidence will vindicate them (as with some COINTELPRO stuff), but until then nobody wants to deal with a believer in an unfalsifiable, paranoid theory of how the modern world works.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the problem with all conspiracy theories - you have to simultaneously portray the conspirators as both genius masterminds and utterly incompetent idiots.
Why would that be a problem? Most people are smart in some things, and stupid in others, or very smart when it comes to ideas and planning but not execution, or vice versa. People have varying capabilities, some of these conspiracies would touch a great many such capabalities, so why is it surprising that they would succeed in some aspects, and fa
Re: (Score:2)
Most conspiracy theorists also also assume that hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators can actually keep a joint secret for years. In reality it simply doesn't happen, someone will sooner or later spill the beans.
Re:terrible review (Score:5, Informative)
The reviewer seems to have a "make Israel look good" agenda. I've read the book, and didn't get the impression that it was anti-Israel. In the book, Israel is a minor side issue.
NSA did have serious problems, the most serious being irrelevancy. NSA was set up to deal with the USSR, a large, slow-moving opponent. NSA's expertise classically was in radio interception and cryptanalysis, with the main target being the USSR's military and intelligence operations. After the USSR went down, the NSA downsized. Running a vast effort to obtain basic information about what the Soviet Union was doing was no longer necessary. You could go to Murmansk and look at the nuclear submarines.
NSA's approach wasn't that helpful in dealing with small-scale non-state actors, which was the problem after 9/11. There were frantic efforts to repurpose NSA, which are well-covered in the book. These efforts were driven by the Cheney crowd, who were more concerned about accumulating power than actually dealing with real terrorists. That's well-covered too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, yes. Us Jew types tend to get a little worried about anything that can fuel the conspiracy theories. You'd understand if you'd been the scapegoat and target of the world's hatred for a couple of millenia also.
Personally I agree with tjstork's comment below. We really don't have the slightest idea what the fuck the NSA does.
Re: (Score:2)
We really don't have the slightest idea what the fuck the NSA does.
That would kind of be the point now, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm just not as sensitive to it...but, since I'm not in or around any muslim communities or countries...I really hear VERY little of any anti-Semitical commentary at all.
And isn't most everyone from the middle east technically a 'semite'
Re: (Score:2)
So I have a simple honest question, no malice intended:
Is it possible to criticize the state of Israel and actions taken by the government and/or military, without being considered Anti-Semitic?
Re:terrible review (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it possible to criticize the state of Israel and actions taken by the government and/or military, without being considered Anti-Semitic?
Yes, provided that the criticism is:
A) directed at Israel rather than at Jews.
B) Not just an old, known anti-Semitic canard or idea with "Zionists" or "Israel" substituted for "the Jews".
C) the criticism is falsifiable and based on well-sourced facts.
Unfortunately many modern anti-Semites claim to be merely criticizing Israel as a cover. You can recognize them by their failure to meet criteria (B) and (C). Everyone else, however, can criticize away.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're right that something can be speculation based on very limited available facts without lapsing into conspiracy theory or prejudice as long as it's falsifiable.
However, I feel that the book pretty much fails points (B) and (C) because it appears that Bamford puts together whatever little evidence can be found for his a-priori theories (so that fails B since the a-priori theories are really just old "Protocols" crap) and that if "evidence" is falsified he'll just scrape up some more (failing p
the NSA downsized? (Score:2)
No they didn't, security efforts were redeployed in industrial espionage [indianexpress.com], with the help of our own GCHQ [jya.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who modded this comment flamebait? It's absolutely true that an entire sector of the book-publishing industry exists to confirm people's delusions that the government is out to get them (preferably under the control of a foreign body so that America can somehow remain The Good Guys).
Re: (Score:2)
and who do non-US publishers pander to to tap this market?
No, sorry, I meant that in conspiracy theories the villain tends to be foreign. This allows conspiracy theorists who feel a bond of loyalty to their home country to convince themselves that its hands remain clean because it was duped and under the control of a foreign agent. It's a kind of catharsis.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Antarctic villains tend to do fine even in the United States. Like that guy... what was his name... ah Oz_!#*#*%NOCARRIER
All this stuff is just made up crap. (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, really, on either side of the aisle. WE have no idea what the NSA is doing and never will.
Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All this stuff is just made up crap. (Score:4, Funny)
I'll give you a hint. Watch "Enemy of the State." Not that.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this get modded up? You really think this book - volume three of a highly regarded series on this organization - is "made up crap"? I'm not saying there aren't secrets, but a lot of the information in books like this can be verified by researching newspaper articles. This isn't about "either side of the aisle" making shit up; it's about journalists doing their jobs. Comments like the above are just an excuse to not pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
For most of their history they were the good guys. J Edgar Hoover misused them, but until bush came to power, they kept their ears pointed away from their fellow Americans. They worked for the American people, not against us.
It wasn't 9-11 that changed it, plans were in the works early in the bush administration. Let the NSA get back to their core mission: the monitoring of foreign threats. Leave the domestic spying to the FBI.
The NSA is a bunch of computer nerds. The label spy doesn't fit them. They are
Re: (Score:2)
Their charter forbid domestic spying, and the culture inside was such that nobody would dare target American citizens.
how about a tech thread jack (Score:2)
Given how interesting tech topics get thread jacked into political food fights around here wouldn't it be a refreshing change of pace if this devolved into a technology discussion about NSA gadgets? As I have nothing on that right now I'm just complaining.
TODO: [insert informed inflammatory political troll]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's funnier that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
interview (Score:5, Informative)
Bamford - USS Liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Bamford's account on the USS Liberty murders was right on the money. I'm a veteran of the "Green NSA", the Army Security Agency. I was on duty on that fateful day in 1967. I was at the east African station he mentioned. I'm glad he debunked the "mistaken identity" lies about the murderous attack on our sailors. He was also right about our government siding with the Israelis time and time again when we tried to get justice for our heros. They even called off rescue efforts when they found the attackers were Israeli.
After having to hold in my anger and hurt for 30 years, it was wonderful to find someone on our side. Thank you Mr Bamford.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in standing with Israel, but they got to return the favor. Friendships should be a two way street. Israel, stand up and take responsibility for your actions against the USS Liberty. We do believe in forgiveness. Trust us.
Re:Bamford - USS Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never known what to believe regarding the Liberty incident. The one question I've never heard answered though is what motive would the Israeli's have for attacking an American ship? What would they stand to gain from doing so?
Re: (Score:2)
Do not attribute to malice that which could be attributed to incompetence. If it would be malice I think by now someone would have spilled the beans.
What I don't get is why they didn't simply own up to it. The accumulated PR damage of this festering wound surely should by now be higher than just getting it over with. Of course that is fodder for the conspiracy guys: What are they covering up that is so big then ?
Re: (Score:2)
Much of what stays secret is secret because it would embarrass, not endanger. Also: If Israel owned up, they might face expensive law suits by the families of the victims.
I'm not concerned about the motives. I want justice for the fallen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Israel. Everything they do is fodder for conspiracy morons. If they "Ha'averot aleinu!" (The sins are upon us!) and beg the world's forgiveness for everything they've ever done wrong, people will just take it as evidence that their crazy theory was right all along and persecute the Israelis. If they act like they've done nothing wrong, people will assume they're hiding something. If they admit some things but not others (for example, only admitting to the things they actually did), people will assu
Re: (Score:2)
All I am concerned with is justice for the USS Liberty victims.
The worst thing to ever happen to that region is oil.
Re:Bamford - USS Liberty (Score:5, Interesting)
The USS Liberty was a spy ship. Israel was doing some things they didn't want anyone else to know. They tried to sink the ship and destroy all lifeboats. They wanted no witnesses. There are suggestions that they feared the USS Liberty had intercepted info that could have exposed Israel to war crime charges. The whole story will come out someday.
Re:Bamford - USS Liberty (Score:4, Interesting)
There are suggestions that they feared the USS Liberty had intercepted info that could have exposed Israel to war crime charges. The whole story will come out someday.
Even if that's true it still begs two questions:
1) Why would the Israeli's sink an American ship when they could just ask the American Government to keep secret whatever the Liberty intercepted? They trust us enough not to retaliate when they kill our servicemen but not enough to keep a secret?
2) How would sinking the Liberty keep such information a secret anyway? The Liberty was presumably in constant communications with her base. How could the Israeli's know that whatever information she had hadn't already been communicated?
I still find the conspiracy theories hard to swallow......
Re:Bamford - USS Liberty (Score:5, Interesting)
1. That would mean telling the very people they wanted to keep in the dark.
2. Not sure if I can address every concern because that gets into methods. The first thing the Israelis did was cripple communications. The first torpedo hit the com center killing all within. It took a while to get an SOS out.
They even shot down our Flag, but our sailors risked their lives to run up a new, even larger American flag. they knew it was an American ship. It was clearly market, the weather clear. Our sailors were sun bathing on deck and waved and cheered the Israeli pilots circling the ship. They had no idea of what was coming.
Two Israeli pilots refused to fire on Americans and were punished. They were the only ones disciplined. Because of that, it would be very difficult for the government to pretend they didn't know it was an American ship.
The Captain of the Liberty was given the CMOH, but the ceremony was done at a hanger, not the White House because of protests from the Israeli government.
My anger is at the Israeli government, not the Israeli people.
Our government should have stood by our sailors. Our government acted cowardly. What a great disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if I can address every concern because that gets into methods
I'm not asking you to address "methods". I'm simply asking the question of how could the Israeli's be sure that sinking the Liberty would keep whatever secret they thought she had?
The first thing the Israelis did was cripple communications. The first torpedo hit the com center killing all within.
Well, 1) The torpedo strike didn't happen first, the air strikes did. 2) You think the torpedo hit on the comm center was by design? Torpedoes (particularly of the 1960s vintage) aren't known for being precision weapons and as I recall they actually fired five of them and only got one hit.
Because of that, it would be very difficult for the government to pretend they didn't know it was an American ship.
I don't know what they knew. I still
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They destroyed the antenna. You always cut communication as soon as possible.
transmission of info:
Things sit in the gut and digested before being discharged. You digestive system works all the time but you only crap a couple times a day. Of course things might be different today.
Paranoia. Remember, they were under attack. They may not have wanted any monitoring by anybody, even allies. That's understandable. I don't know the real reason for the attack, we can only guess. Somebody knows, but as yet I hav
Re:Bamford - USS Liberty (Score:4, Informative)
It was not a mistake. Israeli planes were flying over the Liberty for hours before the attack. Our flag and ID were plain to see. Our sailors were cheering and waving to the pilots as they flew over. They knew the ship because it had been sailing those waters for years. The ship was in international waters, cruising slowly clearly marked and not acting in an an aggressive manner.
I worked morse intercept, and was stationed nearby. Everybody on duty that day knows the truth, we heard it in real time.
Some quotes, and a link to the profiles of the Liberty and the horse carrier Israel claimed was the ship they though it was.
"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "
-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk
"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."
-- CIA Director Richard Helms
"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."
-- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby
"Those sailors who were wounded, who were eyewitnesses, have not been heard from by the American public. . . [Their story] leaves no doubt but what this was a premeditated, carefully reconnoitered attack by Israeli aircraft against our ship."
-- US Senator Adlai Stevenson III in interview with Wm. J. Small, UPI, for publication September 28, 1980
Details of the murders was classified for 30 years. For thirty years all of us that knew the truth were not allowed to say anything about the USS Liberty.
Pilots are trained to tell the difference between ships, just as they are trained to recognize profiles of planes. They know the profiles well. The Israeli pilots were close enough to see our sailors waving to them.
Here's the profiles of the two ships.
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/libertyquseircompared.jpg
It was premeditated murder.
Re:Bamford - USS Liberty (Score:5, Informative)
It was my understanding that the attack on the USS Liberty was done in order to further thicken the fog of war (1967 War), not to make anything secret. It was meant to stop the super-powers from knowing what was going on (the Liberty was conducting intelligence operations). The main aim was to prevent (or at least forestall) any pressure for a cease-fire before Israel were able to seize the land they needed, namely the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. (See US Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1978).
It is incorrect to label this as a conspiracy theory. The only thing really missing is substantiation of the reason behind the attack. It was clearly not an accident. Furthermore, Israeli attacks on its allies have been documented before e.g. the Lavon Affair [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
thank you
Re: (Score:2)
[[ The main aim was to prevent (or at least forestall) any pressure for a cease-fire before Israel were able to seize the land they needed ]]
needed --> wanted.
Here the 'need' is a subjective one not an objective one.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's anti-Semitic to point out that two high-ranking members of AIPAC, a very strong pro-Israel lobbying group, stand accused of spying on America on Israel's behalf. Israel has a proud tradition of having a robust special forces capability. It is probably a fair assumption that they are doing a lot more spying on the United States than they have been caught doing. I mean, it's impossible that the US has caught every instance of Israeli spying.
Re: (Score:2)
From the wikipedia entry one of the main things that comes out is an impression that it was to stop those pesky Americans from looking too closely and interfering. If a commander had an "us against the world" attitute and if there is a weak chain of command I can see this happening when a spy ship from any nationality gets close. Also rem
Re: (Score:2)
When it does, will we critically re-examine who the heroes and villains of the last world war were? Seems like it's about time for that....
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Israeli's are right wingers. Right winger's don't need reasons, or logic, and they don't use much of them either. They do as they please until someone stands up to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Israeli's are right wingers
-1, drastic oversimplification and inaccurate statement
Right winger's don't need reasons, or logic, and they don't use much of them either.
-1, political bias
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you considered that your sort of "They're Israelis, they don't need motives, they just act out of blind malice like the Joker" reasoning is exactly why people on my political side of this sort of thing worry about even the slightest fuel for anti-Israel conspiracy theories?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A little. But I will still point out that Israel, as a nation, has become extremely right wing over the years, and this explains a lot of the country's actions. In fact, I think the greatest tragedy of Israel is just how right wing it has become, being a nation of Jewish immigrants. If you look at the history of socialist movements throughout the western world, you will almost invariably find a prominent Jewish name; So it is sad to see a country so far to the right as Israel presented as the premiere Jewis
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so you think they've become a right-wing nation. And I think Avigdor Lieberman is a racist douchebag who shouldn't be allowed in politics.
Go ahead and refer to them as a right-wing state. Just acknowledge that even people you think of as right-wingers have motives and logical capabilities.
And then tell me what you mean by "right-wing". Do you mean economic rightism, social authoritarianism, or nationalism?
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, it's a general mindset, hard to define. But if I had to come up with a single definition, I would say that a right winger is someone who only believes in rights for the right people. Right wingers only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one
Re: (Score:2)
"someone who only believes in rights for the right people. [They] only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one, where the rules and order they approve of are enforced."
Sounds more like collectivists/communists you have in mind there.
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, it's a general mindset, hard to define. But if I had to come up with a single definition, I would say that a right winger is someone who only believes in rights for the right people. Right wingers only believe in rights when it suits them, and only in freedom to behave as they deem appropriate. They are generally in favor of, if not a caste society, certainly a stratified one, where the rules and order they approve of are enforced. They see that the world should be a certain way and it is very difficult to dissuade them from that view.
Fair enough, but that sounds a bit... overly vague to me. I think if that were true nobody would ever elect right-wing leaders since they so obviously act (by your definition) only in their own interests.
I would say that a left-right divide really only makes sense in places like the USA, Canada, and England with systems that result in only two major parties. In those systems, it seems to me that right-wing ideology tends to come from a belief that might makes right, whereas left-wing views tend to come fr
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect? (Score:3, Insightful)
It has long been known that Bamford has no love lost for Israel. His previous books have incorrectly written of the details around Israel's attack of the Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship, which was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea during the Six-Day War.
Could an example his incorrect details be supplied?
And what about it? An Israeli jet fired upon a ship flying an American flag and killed a bunch of Americans. There's no excuse.
I just don't get American foreign affairs, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't just a jet, it was jets and torpedo boats. There was no mistake. They had recon planes buzzing the Liberty for hours before the attack. They knew the ship well even before the six day war.
They claim it was an Egyptian horse transport. That ship was half the size of the Liberty and had a completely different profile. there was no mistake. The Liberty was clearly marked, and flew the American flag. It was in international waters and was not acting in a hostile manner.
The Mossad & NSA denied it? (Score:5, Funny)
For the longest time, there were claims that every Check Point FireWall-1 had a backdoor which the Mosad could tap into. Some years ago, the NSA even sent out a memo denying that fact, as it was getting in the way of firewall deployments at the agency.
They sent out a memo? Well consider that one debunked.
Re:The Mossad & NSA denied it? (Score:4, Funny)
Limits of Power by Bacevich (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're interested in this type of book, you might want to check out the Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich [google.com]. Bacevich discusses the immense cost of the entire national security apparatus, and how most of the money spent on it goes to increasing the power and prestige of the individual services (NSA, CIA, FBI) and very little goes to actually protecting the American people.
The reviewer - is he Mossad? (Score:5, Funny)
His defense of Israel is so vigorous I find myself wondering - is the reviewer himself on the Mossad's payroll? Was he sent here to cultivate sympathy for Israel amongst the world's intellectual elite (slashdot)?
Israel as a nuclear state (Score:2)
Would you be surprised at this point? Israel has nukes [fas.org] and a secret chemical and biological weapons program [vho.org]. Israel has more nukes than France [globalsecurity.org] and are 1/10th the size in population. That is the only thing holding back the Arab states from running them over with their combined forces in this day and age. Israel is increasingly an untenable state, for the fact that when anyone who does not like them manages to get nukes (i.e. Iran) a single 100kt nuke would be enough to cripple the country and 10-20 to ma
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the world's intellectual elite (slashdot)?
Man, we _are_ in trouble!
Re: (Score:2)
> Man, we _are_ in trouble!
I'm truly sad to say, but yes, the parent is right, and you are right, and indeed we are in trouble.
interesting data points (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
NOVA Documentary (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't read the book yet, but I highly recommend the PBS NOVA documentary based on it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/ [pbs.org]
redeeming factor (Score:2)
The reviewer clearly states his bias though:
"Good overview of the NSA post-9/11, but some of the author's biases get in the way"
Unless of course 'author' does not refer to the author of the review ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
eg
Israeli nuclear forces, 2002 from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/a38g5111525882t4/fulltext.pdf [metapress.com]
USS Liberty (Score:1, Interesting)
"His previous books have incorrectly written of the details around Israel's attack of the Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship, which was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea during the Six-Day War."
I have not read the book, but I'm curious. What was incorrectly written? Why was it incorrect?
You accuse the author of making unsubstantiated claims, yet you've done the exact same thing here. I understand this is a book review, but if you're going to make such broad statements, at least back them up with a
This book rocks (Score:2)
An excellent overview of the techniques and methods of mass data mining.
The question is whether all that stuff they collected (and the galaxy of contractors is REALLY well explained) can count as exculpatory evidence in big cases. (IE if you're accused of being a terrorist, then Booz Allen Hamilton ought to cough everything up.)
Which is why i loaned my copy to rnc8.org - the RNC Welcoming Committee "furtherance of terrorism" defendants!
Huh, wha? (Score:2)
"...how Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card manipulated a sick and barely lucid Attorney General John Ashcroft into signing on to the program."
Wasn't Ashcroft already signed on to the program? My understanding was that the sideshow in the hospital was just to continue the authorization for the program. Also, I'm pretty sure he refused to sign.
I love Bamford's work (Score:2)
I've read both previous books and will read this one, too. I see this story as a spoiler zone, and I haven't read the entire review, but I want to thank /. for putting up a review on it in the first place. Bamford's looks at the secret world of our intelligence agencies are nothing short of thorough and well-researched.
Everyone should read Bamford before ever uttering the letters "NSA" in public. Whenever someone starts ranting about the NSA I ask them if they've ever read the Puzzle Palace or Body of Se
Re: (Score:2)
"but I want to thank /. for putting up a review on it in the first place."
Well you should have READ the entire review before thanking them because it was a really bad, biased review. I'm assuming Rothke is either Jewish or very sympathetic to Israel because his review was obsessed with a defense of Israel and downplaying Israeli centric conspiracies to the point you started to feel this review is part of a CONSPIRACY. Slashdot editors really need to consider actually reading reviews and not posting ones l
Conspiracy Theory? (Score:3, Interesting)
As a reasonable, skeptical individual, I would personally be completely shocked to find out that absolutely none of this data was being passed on to Israeli security forces. At the very least, I would expect that Israeli intelligence has in some fashion managed to get access to information it needs through at least one of these companies. It would beggar belief that an organisation like Mossad had not availed itself of such an opportunity.
Frankly, in the times we live in, I would expect that all of these companies along with every other subcontractor, has already creamed off useful statistics and data and sold them to banks, credit agencies and marketers. This in fact would bother me more than data being passed to competent intelligence outfits, would would at least misuse it in a security conscious way.
This data is in some fashion being passed on to the Israeli security forces. It is in no way a conspiracy theory to suggest this, and any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. Whether the American intelligence community is placing itself at risk by outsourcing like this is another matter.
Frankly, from the tone of the book, the American intelligence community appears to be a contradiction in terms.
Biased review. (Score:2, Insightful)
A quick perusal if the reviewers website shows his pro Israel bias quite clearly, he "Ran for Israel" in a marathon for example.