NSA Chief Built Star Trek Like Command Center 372
Bruce66423 writes "As the NSA scandal moves from appalling to laughable, the latest report in the Guardian indicates that the current NSA chief spent US taxpayers' money to create a command center for his intelligence operations that was styled just like Star Trek. From the PBS News Hour report: 'When he was running the Army's Intelligence and Security Command, Alexander brought many of his future allies down to Fort Belvoir for a tour of his base of operations, a facility known as the Information Dominance Center. It had been designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek, complete with chrome panels, computer stations, a huge TV monitor on the forward wall, and doors that made a 'whoosh' sound when they slid open and closed. Lawmakers and other important officials took turns sitting in a leather 'captain's chair' in the center of the room and watched as Alexander, a lover of science-fiction movies, showed off his data tools on the big screen. "Everybody wanted to sit in the chair at least once to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard," says a retired officer in charge of VIP visit '"
Set course for accountability... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Computer: Beep Beep! Warning! A Level 1 Data Breach is currently in progress. Failure to resolve data breach could result in loss of all hands by space dock.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Set course for accountability... (Score:5, Insightful)
The bridge serves a real purpose for the NSA,
And what purpose is that other than to satisfy the delusions of grandeur of the people running the place and the people holding the purse strings?
even if it didn't, there's plenty of data centers that have fancy-looking NOCs that are only there to look fancy for the big wigs
That might be tolerable in a corporate environment, but not a government one. This is pure, unadulterated waste. "Selling" isn't part of the mission.
Re:Set course for accountability... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. Spending taxpayer dollars for a fancy NOC that is not even supposed to exist is just shitting on the citizens. His motto is "Collect it All". He ran an "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine" (quotes from the article)
The reflections off the metal would be impractical, based on the pictures. For a room whose "primary function is to enable 24-hour worldwide visualization, planning, and execution of coordinated information operations for the US Army and other federal agencies" it would be better off using a dark matte paint.
I think the article said it best:
And yes, I am concerned about all of those other wastes of dollars too. They just don't happen to stem from a clearly illegal surveillance program. That is what puts this in a completely different ballpark of outrage. The glass and openness and conference table make sense. The giant projector makes sense. But having a single chair positioned to look at the 22 foot projector is ridiculous. It seems that there are two seats on either side, but they are behind a completely unnecessary bulky chrome something or other. A simple wall structure on the front side, with table/desk on the back would have been far more functional. And less reflective. And depending on the purpose of those seats you could have room for more people, more equipment, or just more space.
I'm not sure what the crap on the ceiling is - functional or decorative - but from the images the lighting is spotty. I would have preferred either track lighting or something consistent, but this design seems to work against the light rather than with it. The opposite of what you want in a data visualization room. If you make the argument that a projector requires darker conditions, there are a completely new pile of objections to the design, with the metal and parts of the glass reflecting light right back at where the projector is supposed to be.
This is a terrible, purposeless design which just shows off how disconnected the people driving the train really are. Done right, this would have been an expensive but obvious solution to the problem of data visualization. The extra bling, and hollywood set design work, way outstepped any reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, do you instead realize the answers to all your "Why" questions above?
I have only realized that there are now two groups of pompous and arrogant assholes with a distorted view of the world: The NSA, and the NSA's detractors.
Re:Set course for accountability... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the NSA geek feel like he's Captain Picard. You know you would too if given the chance.
I can say with complete assurance that I wouldn't be spending other people's money on such an embarrassingly obvious teenage power fantasy. It belittles the man rather than imbuing him with authority.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Set course for accountability... (Score:5, Informative)
That's a commonly held belief among Trekkies - but it's complete and utter bullshit. The control rooms of (US) nuclear submarines reached essentially their modern form in the Barbel [wikipedia.org] class, the first of which was launched in 1958. There have been some refinements over the years but even the control room of the current Virginia class is a direct descendent of Barbel's. Examining submarine control room layouts pre- and post- Star Trek shows no change that can be attributable to it's influence.
If you can dig up a copy, Friedman's U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History dedicates a good chunk of one chapter (and several pages of diagrams) to the evolution of submarine control rooms from WWII through the early Los Angeles class.
(Why yes, yes I am a former submariner and a student of their history.)
Re:Set course for accountability... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say that the typical '50s sub layout influenced Roddenberry. Lots of similarities in the layout, two forward pilot stations, captain in the centre, sonar, comms and engineering stations around the sides. The ST:TOS Enterprise just had more room to spread out the set, and Roddenberry merged the weapons station into one of the pilot stations.
The things you can do (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad its fake. (Score:4, Funny)
If it were a real bridge of a real starship, they could leave.. and leave us ALONE!
Re: (Score:3)
Better than cubes (Score:2)
It's still a better design than rows of generic gray or beige cubes.
Re:Better than cubes (Score:4)
And why is that? I would be more comforted in the head of the NSA was overlooking a sea of cubes. That would mean that they have some reason to try to increase efficiency, to economize, to avoid wasting money and acting like giant imbeciles.
Hell, if he was spending on hookers and blow I could give him some wiggle room.
But Star Trek, come on. He doesn't even have photon torpedoes. How lame is that?
Re: (Score:2)
But Star Trek, come on. He doesn't even have photon torpedoes. How lame is that?
Wrong meeting room. You want DARPA down the hall for the boom boom.
Re:Better than cubes (Score:5, Funny)
Cubes worked just fine for the Borg...
Re: (Score:3)
But he wanted to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard. That alone should be enough to lose his job. Kirk all the way or your fired should be a law somewhere.
Megastreisand (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania
Taxpayer money? (Score:5, Insightful)
And how much taxpayer money was burnt on this nutjobs sci-fi wet dream? Its like watching any one of those films depicting a dystopian future, those in power playing out their fantasies while those who actually fund their antics (either through taxes or illicit corporate profits) live in squalor. I suppose the latter part has yet to completely come to pass but at the rate things are going ($17 trillion in debt & federal spending increasing at $200 a second)its not going to take long.
How much? Not enough to matter IN THE LEAST! (Score:5, Informative)
You seriously don't have the slightest clue how much things actually cost. The entire place probably cost a fraction of, say, one Tomahawk missile launch into Syria. They had to build the place anyway, and they needed a control center of some kind, so my guess is Star-Trekifing it probably cost less than 1% of the total budget, and that's just for construction. It costs millions to keep a place like that running. I say, either let them have their fun, or demand that they cut costs in a much bigger way, but don't complain about what amounts to pin-striping on the side of a fighter jet as though it would even make the tiniest pit of difference to the big picture.
It doesn't, it won't, and it can't. PBS is just looking for something to whine about.
Re:How much? Not enough to matter IN THE LEAST! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, in the grand scheme of military/intelligence spending its a drop in the bucket. Problem is we have millions of them, and they're adding up fast. That command facility that was built in Afghanistan and never used/wanted, $34 Million. GAO audits have classified nearly half of purchases on government charge cards as improper. The SEC spent nearly $3.9 million rearranging desks at its DC HQ. Congress members have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money on cars, popcorn machines, cameras, TV's and other amenities. And the list goes on, and on, and on. I'm all for going after the big ticket waste as well, but you can die from a thousand small cuts just as easily as you can die from a meat cleaver to the head.
The mindset is worse than money (Score:5, Insightful)
The money's bad but I don't find it the most disturbing part of this. The place doesn't look that much more expensive than any office the senior management of a large organization would work in.
It's the mindset that would want such an Information Dominance Center that is disturbing. It bespeaks a person willing to use his position to live out a fantasy. In this fantasy, the fate of the galaxy country rests in his singular hands. Far from being a functionary who answers to civilian authorities, he's the protagonist in some grand drama.
And as much as I love Star Trek, a Star Trek fantasy is the last one I'd see in such a man. Star Trek captains righteously flout all the rules. When superiors order them to stand down, when their fundamental laws (the Prime Directive) deny them the power, when the lives of entire worlds are at stake, they do what they think best, damn the torpedoes, warp 9, engage. A man with such delusions of grandeur ought not be put in charge of HUD, much less a secretive organization known for its willingness to spy on citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal [wikipedia.org]
"In 1998, when analysts were given a tour of the Enron Energy Services office, they were impressed with how the employees were working so vigorously. In reality, Skilling had moved other employees to the office from other departments (instructing them to pretend to work hard) to create the appearance that the division was larger than it was."
Some have to mimic the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek others had to mimic size.
Re: (Score:3)
And as much as I love Star Trek, a Star Trek fantasy is the last one I'd see in such a man. Star Trek captains righteously flout all the rules. When superiors order them to stand down, when their fundamental laws (the Prime Directive) deny them the power, when the lives of entire worlds are at stake, they do what they think best, damn the torpedoes, warp 9, engage. A man with such delusions of grandeur ought not be put in charge of HUD, much less a secretive organization known for its willingness to spy on citizens.
I also love the Roddenberry canon, but I disagree with your evaluation. I think you are missing the kind of "love of the contradictions" attitude that I think it shares with other religious canons. For instance, take money. We start with a vision of earth utopia 300 years in the future, where nobody is short on cash, short on food, short on housing, or short on medical care. NOBODY. And no more national wars on our planet. All that shit was *solved by smart people over a long period of time*. Or so t
Acting on Their Own Stage, All Villains are Heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, I couldn't agree more. But that's not what I was talking about.
Certainly, I couldn't agree more. But that's not what I was talking about.
Context here is important. We're not talking about the underling who refuses the unjust order. We're not talking about the outside contractor who goes whistle-blower on his former employer. We're not dealing with the valiant Starfleet captain refusing to accept the judgment of a corrupt admiral. We're talking about the guy giving the underling the unjust order; the employer whose patriotic employees must flee the country after speaking out for its sake; the admiral whose worst corruption is that he breaks the law while thinking himself the valiant captain. We can hope that the underling, the whistleblower, or the captain might stand up to such a man, but this is only a scarce hope. The normal means, indeed the preferred means, of preventing such things is to bind such a man with law and transparency. But an organization such as the NSA denies in word and deed that it should be subject to transparency; it is your Section 31. And we know because of the whistleblower how regularly it flouts the fundamental laws meant to bind it.
This is why I call this man's decision to model himself on Star Trek captains disturbing. It's the context. An NSA Chief will not fancy himself the corrupt admiral whose unjust orders Kirk, Picard, or Sisko refuse since they answer to the higher law of their conscience. He will sit in the captain's chair and, hearing Fourth Amendment like Prime Directive, will regard himself as the valiant rogue captain, out to save the Federation against its own lesser judgment. This is, after all, usually the case with corrupt admirals. Thus I agree with Lewis when he says:
In short, I do not say this because I think all laws ought always to be obeyed. Rather I say this because I think some laws ought to be obeyed. Especially by those in charge, whose lust for power, whose self-righteousness presumption, and above all whose assumption that they know what's best, the laws themselves were meant to contain.
There it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we actually need any more proof that the NSA is completely out of control and run by a nutball? Visions of grandeur anyone? Even the President just uses a regular (nice but regular) chair and desk.
Any NSA apologists care to take a stab at this one? (I could use a laugh)
Re: (Score:3)
But if you look at the "Information Dominance Center" [dbia.com], you can see violation of the Star Trek design right away. For example, The Chair is not positioned so that the commander can see every one at onc
Re: (Score:2)
The way they screw it up is just more proof that the nutter in charge just wanted to feel like the big man and didn't really care how much it cost people.
That and piloting a vessel of any kind is a very different task than sigint.
But yes, it's funny how they went to such lengths to copy Star Trek and yet managed to screw it up so badly.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you look at the "Information Dominance Center" [dbia.com], you can see violation of the Star Trek design right away. For example, The Chair is not positioned so that the commander can see every one at once and it has a ridiculous metal shell behind it creating a giant blind spot behind it. And it's built into a line of work desks, so that you can't easily walk around to behind The Chair.
That blind spot is actually an improvement -- an "out of sight, out of mind" place for Wesley!
(Sorry Clevernickname!)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, The Chair is not positioned so that the commander can see every one at once and it has a ridiculous metal shell behind it creating a giant blind spot behind it
Perhaps they were going for a different look?: http://www.surieffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/676045.jpg [surieffect.com]
Did it really cost more than a standard room (Score:2)
Who knows, it probably didnt cost any more money to build than a more plain control room would. If that is the case, I don't know if it really makes a lot of sense to make a big uproar over it. As long as it doesnt cost any more, why not make it look neat?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seeing the same photos I am? Stainless steal covering pretty much every surface, custom designed desks, doors and ceiling fixtures? Its not gold plated but it still likely cost a LOT more than standard operations setup.
Wait. What? (Score:2)
... a facility known as the Information Dominance Center.
I thought information wanted to be free.
I guess we're the "bottom" in this NSA BDSM situation because all I've seen so far is the NSA reaching for the big, black strap-on... But I thought the bottom has all the power in this kind relationship - and we obviously don't - so I'm really confused.
who else thought... (Score:2)
NSA... star-trek like command center... Who else immediately thought of the Dreadnought bridge from Into Darkness?
oh, I love that "thinking" (Score:3)
Yes, and air is their primary breathing gas, water the main component of their beverages, and they drive around in vehicles powered by gasoline, itself mostly dug out of countries harboring these very terrorists! We can't have that! Nobody should be allowed to breathe air, drink water, or drive a car without government control. (And if you think recent administrations haven't been trying, you haven't been paying attention.)
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing. The curtains have merely been pulled back a little.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip [wikipedia.org]
Add a few more from the East as consultants after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
So what if it if the design is inspired by a Sci-Fi TV show? Show me that this would have cost way more than some other design had a non-Star Trek fan been responsible for its acquisition.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if it if the design is inspired by a Sci-Fi TV show? Show me that this would have cost way more than some other design had a non-Star Trek fan been responsible for its acquisition.
"It had been designed by a Hollywood set designer"
Would you like more clues?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't cost. The issue is that these people are entrusted with the privacy of every American citizen. They act in secret and we aren't even allowed to know a rough count of how many Americans they are spying on. When you see something like this, it just does not seem like they are taking that responsibility seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they even need this room? The question is not could it have been designed cheaper, but could the NSA simply not built it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you where fighting money laundering or drugs or tracking weapons sales or tracking military tests - the NSA could help you visualise victory during your meetings.
Great for more funding and ongoing cooperation.
The NSA never wanted to continue on its 1990's budget and just get 'requests' or have an ongoing mission wrt codes.
Video (Score:5, Informative)
This is apparently video of it from 2007:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFNUbdARitk
There's more of these control rooms (Score:5, Interesting)
DBI has built control rooms for other agencies. Here's their portfolio [dbia.com]. They did the new White House Situation Room (which looks reasonable), the National Counterterrorism Center (overdid the lighting effects), Lockheed Martin (looks like a movie set, overhead lighting grids and all), a NASA auditorium (just rows of seats and some big screens), GeoEye (overdid the ceiling design), Defense Information Security Agency (fancy ceiling, lots of Eames chairs.)
But only for the NSA facility did they really go over the top. This is the silliest control center design since the Moscow United electric power control center [dezeen.com] The layout makes no sense. The person in the "Captain's chair" is in front, and can't see what everybody else is doing. The "captains chair" has no controls or screens of its own, so whomever sits there cannot do anything except shout orders.
A common setup in operational control centers, especially USAF and NASA, is to have the ability for each station to look at screens of other stations in view-only mode. (Originally this was done with an actual channel selector and an analog cable TV system). When something important is happening, a lot of people may need to look at one display. This eliminates everybody crowding around the station that has the key information at the moment. Once you have that, the physical layout doesn't matter as much.
The result is that most modern military command centers are rather boring - they look like a help-desk operation. The current NORAD center looks much less impressive than its predecessors. In the field, a bunch of laptops in a tent can operate as a command center. A modern tactical operations center looks like that, not like one of these fancy overdecorated rooms.
There's a reason ... (Score:2)
There are more efficient way to implement command and control systems than a century old battleship bridge. Or everyone staring at the same big display. But it sure looks good for the spectators.
Makes me wonder what those monitors show... (Score:2)
On a set like that, it would not surprise me if those monitors show fancy 3D-animations of the 'interior' of machines they are about to break-and-enter, airlock-type doors with blinking red 'NO ACCESS' writing on them accompanied by clanging noises, integrated circuits visualised as city landscapes and more of that stuff which we've always laughed about in the movies about hacking and hackers...
Drunk with power (Score:3)
An "Information Dominance Center" arranged more like a throne room than a functional working environment...I guess when a human gets a taste of 2 of the 3 aspects of godhood, it goes to their head a bit.
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
We ALL wear red shirts.
The problem for us Red Shirted Crewmwn... (Score:3)
Is this guy running the NSA:
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/569/insp_captkirk_5_.jpg [kym-cdn.com]
(Apologies to William Shatner)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit.
Bin Liden's falling out with Saudi Arabia was over their invitation of American troops to defend them from Iraq after the initial invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led them to try to silence him. They subsequently revoked his citizenship and he relocated to Sudan.
He declared war on the United States in August of 1996 because after defeating the Iraqis, the U.S. left troops in The Kingdom. His fatwa was titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places [pbs.org]" and explicitly states that the highest prioriy is pushing the unbelievers out of the Holy Land.
What al-Qaida really wants ranks right up there with my son wanting a pony. Neither is ever going to get remotely what they state, nor are they capable of really trying. al-Qaida knows they have to defeat the "near enemy" -- all of the autocratic rulers of the Middle East -- to form their beloved Caliphate before they can think about dealing with the "far enemy" -- the West. Notice how little progress they've made on that front. What, Iran? Anything else?
Considering bin Laden ranked the Shia right there with Infidels and Jews, I'd say he had his hands full with formenting a Muslim civil war before getting anywhere else.
al-Qaida's weapon on 9/11/2001 was surprise, and you know it. SOP for dealing with a hijacking was sit back and wait until it was over. That'll never happen again. al-Qaida has virtually no ability to strike the West with any force. They also have their hands full with all of the "Arab Spring" issues to even think about dealing with the "far enemy" at all.
If the Islamists can't even hold Egypt when it was handed to them on a silver platter, their so called "demand" that the U.S. convert to Islam ranks somewhere just below them all getting ponies for Christmas.
They can't even get Sharia implemented in places like Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan, much less anywhere outside their home turf.
Reading their Christmas wish list and taking it for gospel is disingenuous. Especially when it looks like it isn't going anywhere near according to plan. Egypt shows that just because the autocrat was out doesn't mean anyone really wants the Islamists in. Just trading boots.
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Its bullshit man, sure there's people who act as terrorists (see "The Mandarin, Ironman") for a (movie example, since literary examples are not quite relevant anymore).
There has been no significant threat to Americans thwarted by the CIA or NSA. The FBI was told to STAND DOWN before 911. And the prior bombing int he basement. Even though they had specific intel on both incidents.
The intel that gets shared on public mass media is propanda. There were no bunkers for Hussam in Iraq. There is no grand chemical weapons threat.
Could something happen like the incident in Tokyo with Sarin gas? Sure but its just as likely to be government funded than an actual terrorist organization. At this point.
The point is we cannot trust our government to "protect us". Take away our freedom, disabling our means of protecting ourselves. They don't want revolution. Because we are on the verge of something tianamin square level in the states. Despite how much people want to bury their heads in the sand.
2 million bikers in DC this month/last few weeks. Not even aired on public TV. Take a good look at your world. At the corporations, the services they provide. Who they cater to. And how your police operate.
Take a solid hard look. Don't take my word for it.
Ask why there are so many disenfranchised poor vagrant transient people in America today. Ask why welfare exists. Question everything. Look at it all.
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Every country in the region has a database of useful 'freedom fighters' to ship around as needed. The only implications are its little regional wars as usual and the same teams keep showing up year after year after year.
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
The irony here is thick. If we were going to have a Tianamin Square incident, it would have happened at Occupy Wall Street. This regime has far more subtly techniques to placate the masses (civilized?). They don't need to use military force for it.
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The far greatest threat that al Qaida poses is that the government is using them as an excuse to trample civil liberties. Otherwise, those impotent, pissant losers aren't even worth worrying about.
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between you and a rational person is you're a sniveling coward who doesn't deserve the freedom you're apparently so willing to throw away.
al Qaida are a worthless pile of insane sociopaths who managed to get lucky once. They're not a credible threat to the United States on any significant scale, and they sure as Hell aren't worth allowing our civil rights to be fucked over by the NSA in order to combat!
And even if they were a credible threat, IT'S GODDAMN WORTH IT to be killed rather than subjugated by our own fear. I would rather get blown up than live in the police state that treasonous, cowardly assholes like you are trying so fucking hard to create!
Now, go fuck off and hide under a rock or something if you're so damn scared. But leave my rights and freedoms alone!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony here is thick. If we were going to have a Tianamin Square incident, it would have happened at Occupy Wall Street. This regime has far more subtly techniques to placate the masses (civilized?). They don't need to use military force for it.
Occupy Wall Street was nowhere near a serious protest, let alone actual rebellion. There was no organisation, no goals, just a loose gathering of people who had nothing in common besides "I dont like something" and thought it would be a good idea to stand in one place together. Even the most dim-witted, backwater banana republic dictator knows you just wait that one out until they all go home for supper. I mean they didn't have an actual goal, no manifesto, not even a somewhat clear idea of what they wanted
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, yeah. Very Tiananmen Square like. And there was organization, it just wasn't particularly centralized or well coordinated.
"University students who marched and gathered in Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu also voiced grievances against inflation, limited career prospects, and corruption of the party elite. They cal
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Informative)
This story is about how this general Alexander character is a powermad nutbag. Pointing over there and yelling "but, AQ" isn't changing that.
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
... No matter the "percentage" why is the USA backing any group supporting the aims of "rebel forces"?
That's a very good question, one that I've been asking myself. I'd say that the pressure to intervene probably originates with special interest groups that are pressuring the western governments to "do something". Such interest groups operate as "nonpartisan" or "neutral" NGOs that want to do nothing but help "civilians" who are being killed, maimed, starved, and driven from their homes into refugee camps. I'm thinking of groups like Doctors Without Borders, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, etc. Are these groups evil? Well, how can saving children, providing medical aid to wounded "civilians", and feeding refugees be wrong?
Maybe it can't be evil to do these things, but it can sure skew your perspective. What's happening in Syria is a civil war. The whole notion of "civilians" has become ephemeral in these days of irregular warfare, but this is especially true in a civil war: in a civil war, nobody is a civilian. Someone can be a fighter one day, and an "injured civilian" on the next. So when such charitable NGOs provide humanitarian aid to one side in the war, they are taking sides. Even medical treatment and food are weapons in a war; in addition, anyone who is involved in such work is going to see the people they are dealing with as the good guys, and the other side as evil oppressors. So they start churning out press releases and videos of mutilated children; these media carry the implicit or explicit message that the "other side" —and only the other side—is doing evil. And of course we must stop evil.
That's how we arrived at the moral logic that was driving the Obama administration until the Secretary of State accidentally short-circuited the official policy with his off-hand remark that the Syrian government has the option of giving up its chemical weapons. That moral logic, as far as I can tell, was as follows: "The Bad People have killed innocent civilians with cruel weapons of which we disapprove. We must now kill an indefinite number of Bad People with approved weapons so that the moral ledger will once again be balanced." This is, of course, nuts.
It is often hard to accept—especially for Americans—that there is evil in the world that cannot be stopped without doing more evil. That sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yes, "freedom fighters". But, as George Carlin once pointed out, if firefighters fight fires and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?
Re: (Score:3)
If we were going to have a Tianamin Square incident, it would have happened at Occupy Wall Street.
The government didn't need tanks, but it sure put down Occupy Wall Street by force.
The end of the protest in the park in New York was riot police blocking all entrances and exits to the area around the protest (including physically preventing several New York City Council members from observing), barging into the park at 3 AM when most of the protesters were asleep and beating anyone who didn't leave quickly enough, followed by destroying the private property that was left behind. This was after they had tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Informative)
Flaw 2: Not recognizing that freedom is the crew, we are all the red shirts, and NSA is the enemy.
Flaw 3: Saying we'll eventually find out, when Snowden
Flaw 4: Extending any Star Trek analogy
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
see, because America doesn't make anything anymore (Score:3)
recent tapes by Ayman al-Zawahiri ... calling for ...not buying stuff made in America.
That's OK, I'm pretty sure Doritos aren't halal.
Re: (Score:3)
This gives you a peek into their mentality (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the whole damn story reminds me of an old film about an American military coup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_days_in_may [wikipedia.org]
All we need now, is a new Senator Joe McCarthy at the helm . . .
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the whole damn story reminds me of an old film about an American military coup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_days_in_may [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
All we need now, is a new Senator Joe McCarthy at the helm . . .
2000, 2004, 2008, & 2012. Done and done. With a little Mao, Stalin, & Mussolini thrown in on both.
In two main flavors.
We have the (D)ick-flavored one now. We had the (R)ectum-flavored one last time.
But don't throw away your vote. The wrong lizard might get in.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
So was it about terrorism or feeding the lusts of a perverted group of individuals who were able to exploit a billion dollar budget for self gratification and delusions of power over others. Which others were contented to let slide because of information which they gained which they could financially and politically exploit. For those billions spent, I wonder how many billions were made by insiders with free access to the information.
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be alright with it if they also treated the Bill of Rights like the Prime Directive.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd be alright with it if they also treated the Bill of Rights like the Prime Directive.
You'd like the Bill of Rights to be violated with impunity?
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
NSA: Stupid, fucking dipshits.
Fucking place is going to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
It gives me the impression that they are megalomaniacal and power crazy.
Oh pshaw!
It's not at all like a "Dr. Evil's evil control room" at all!
I'll wager you won't find even a single "shark with a frickin' laser beam" anywhere.
Not sure about the "mini-Me's".
See? What's to worry about?
I'm certain it had to be built like that to properly enslav^W^W^W^W^W^Wprotect the nation.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
The shark with the fricking laser beam is over at DARPA.
Get yore agencies straight!
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find more disturbing than one narcissist with an unlimited budget was the idea that this was really built not as his idea of an actual data-command-centre, but as a set to impress VIPs, especially Congressmen, especially those on oversight committees...
What I find disturbing is that they claim it worked. None of those VIPs had the reaction that apparently everyone else in the entire fucking world had upon hearing about this (and moreso on seeing it). Not one, not a single one of them went, "WTF? Are you people insane?", they were all impressed and wanted to sit in the "Captain's chair", and then went away and helped NSA's cause and budget in Congress/Committee.
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that they sat, it's that they saw this room and their reaction was to become the General allies, instead of thinking that he's completely delusional.
It's that this fake set actually worked on them.
Re: That's awesome (Score:2)
Kristen Vaughness' "office in the basement" is much closer to how serious hacking is done.
Unfortunately REAL cyber-security is more like being a dreaded SOX Auditor.... Lots of checking and double checking that somebody "locked the gates" every night like they're supposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Kristen Vaughness' "office in the basement" is much closer to how serious hacking is done.
Any link to that? I'm not having much luck with Google.
Re:That's awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy crap.
What is awesome about this is how much you have lost control of your country and how flagrantly your leaders are rubbing your noses in their anooses.
Awesome in the horrible, black hole like way and not the good way.
Re:That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
PBS isn't known for having a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4156 [hulu.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)