Inside the 2013 US Intelligence "Black Budget" 271
i_want_you_to_throw_ writes "U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government's top secret budget. The $52.6 billion 'black budget' for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses those funds or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress."
Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Douglas Adams was right. The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.
Re:Cool (Score:4, Informative)
I think the only thing that is "intelligent" about "intelligence agencies" is the way they secure unlimited black box budgets. $60 billion for 100,000 staff is an average of $600k for each staff member. what are they spending it on? contractors i bet.
Re: (Score:2)
what are they spending it on?
I hear these sorts of things are useful, and expensive: KH-11 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Cool (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cool (Score:4, Interesting)
Drones. That's where the money goes. Drones are expensive. And, the facilities to operate the drones. The military industrial complex, and the components of that complex, sets their own prices. Like the no-bid contracts exposed in the Iraq war, money is no problem. Secret deals are made, complete with kickbacks and campaign donations, and the government pays whatever the contractor says to pay. The people who authorize these expenditures are part of the same group that authorizes expenditures for billion dollar aircraft. Think about that - billion dollar aircraft.
Alright - maybe I exaggerate the drone cost some, but I am pretty damned serious.
Re:Cool (Score:4, Interesting)
Though drones don't cost that much, there are other billion dollar aircraft.
After Obama won in 2008, his administration's spending plans had large increasing drone spending before he even took office.
The revolving door is another big part of how the system work: retiring colonels have lucrative employment deals lined up with the contractors before they award the contracts. And of course private stock offerings are another mechanism for congressmen. I've been out of the industry for a few years now, and it still makes my blood boil.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)
And it's not just this black budget' either. Google "GOA DOD not auditable" and you'll find that the office of accounting has pretty much zero idea how the Pentagon budget (of some 800 billion at present) is spent.
See this huff post [huffingtonpost.com] article for example. Further digging indicates that the DoD has effectively been unaccountable even since before 2001.
Currently they are promising to be auditable by 2017...
Re: (Score:2)
Google "GOA DOD not auditable"
Damn that should have been GAO of course, not GOA.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Further digging indicates that the DoD has effectively been unaccountable even since before 2001.
Actually, they've arguably been unaccountable since about 1935 or so during the run-up to that little problem in Europe and the Pacific. Dwight Eisenhower was warning the country about it back when he was president. There have been numerous documented cases of the DoD and intelligence agencies flat-out lying to presidents and legislators when it suited their interests, and never being called to account for that.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. As I saw it, the arguments about the Iraq and Afghan wars that were in the press during the Bush administration could be mostly understood as a part of the turf war between the pentagon and the state department.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
People tend to vastly overestimate how much defacto power a president has.
Why do people on Slashdot keep saying this? The POTUS really does hold ultimate power over the Executive Branch of the US Government, which includes the DoD and the DNI agencies. I get that we want to think he doesn't know or that he's just some dupe, but he's not. (It reminds me of how Soviet citizens in the '30s would look at terrible abuses or atrocities - usually specifically approved by Stalin - and often say, "If only Stalin knew!")
Anyone who has spent much time around the government in DC can tell you that, yes, defense companies and lobbyists wield a lot of influence over the Legislative Branch... but they're not really in charge of the National Security apparatus - the president is. And he's not some patsy. The sad truth about these activities is that he knows about them and he thinks they're OK.
Maybe he's right that they do actually stop terrorist attacks, maybe he's just letting these programs continue because he doesn't want to look "soft" on terrorism or get blamed if there's another attack. I don't know and neither do you. But either way please don't delude yourself that the POTUS has not 100% approved what the intelligence community's big initiatives and scope of surveillance are.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe he just thinks all the companies provide employment.
Or maybe his political party wants to secure funding for the next elections.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Funny)
"Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player!" (Score:3)
Outstanding! LOL
I have to say, that's the best analogy I've ever heard on this subject.
On the surface it seems so simple, but the subtle implications are truly astounding.
He knows what is going on upstairs, ...
And nobody talks about what is going on in the basement....$52.6 bn USD worth of something.
Those that break that rule usually have to flee the country.
That from a country allegedly ruled 'by the people, for the people'.
What people? Not me!
Bin Laden won a decade ago.
It strikes me as ironic that we kill him just before public awareness that
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I know.
The US and UK have been mucking about in the whole of the Middle East since 1945.
We have caused most of our problems there.
We are to blame for Osama Bin Ladin. That's what struck me as ironic.
It's like Frankenstein's Monster run amok over there.
I'm not a christian, but this seems appropriate here:
"Yea shall reap what yea sow." Or, something of that nature.
That was my point...why do we have to impose our way of life on the unwilling? Just for cheap oil?
That's obscene.
We already know (for decades
Re:Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this! ...The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obama is apparently a a keen supporter of intelligence spending. [defensenews.com]
Well, since Obama was personally (and unusually) involved in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress, I'd say the argument that he is a mere figurehead doesn't quite fly.
Re:Cool (Score:4, Insightful)
That's President Obama. Now, if you were to quote Senator Obama, your point would be valid. You want to know how much he is a pawn? Military action against Syria will happen between next Saturday night and Tuesday morning. He will take action, as Presidents before him have, while Congress is in recess. He has until the 9th. This will be the main focus of his Presidential Address on Sunday; justifying the legality and U.S. interest in doing so. He'll pull at liberal heart strings.
This has been planned for the past 15 years now just like the Iraq war was. U.S. and Britain (primarily) won't miss their chance even though there is more evidence to counter the claim Assad used chemical weapons. They're manufacturing evidence.
The Elites need the Syrian pipeline and this is their chance to take it.
(Did I mention the U.S. and NATO have been funding the destabilization of Syria for the past four years?)
Next stop: Iran
Re:Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
This has been planned for the past 15 years now just like the Iraq war was. U.S. and Britain (primarily) won't miss their chance even though there is more evidence to counter the claim Assad used chemical weapons. They're manufacturing evidence.
The Elites need the Syrian pipeline and this is their chance to take it.
(Did I mention the U.S. and NATO have been funding the destabilization of Syria for the past four years?)
Next stop: Iran
You're close, but think bigger. Much bigger.
The global interests have decided that it's time for global change. They want the "Age of America" as a top superpower finished and over with. They want a major global power-shift.
The only way outside of natural disasters/pandemics that major and sudden global changes happen is through world war.
World War 3 is what is being staged here. Russia has already sent a fleet to the area. Both Russia and China have warned the US not to strike Syria. The US will be facing Russia, China, Iran, and much of the Middle East and others with an over-extended and exhausted US military. The US doesn't come out of that well.
The US Dollar is about to collapse. They've been running the printing presses at warp speed to maintain a rough status-quo while they make preparations. They see a war as not only the only way, but the preferred way, out of the somewhere-north-of ~$17T debt (that's admitted to), while simultaneously taking the US out of the top-global-superpower club and allowing martial law to be declared in the US and massive domestic political/societal changes made via the barrels of guns.
Hang on boys and girls.
Shit's about to get real after Obama strikes Syria.
I firmly believe it will be the "Archduke Ferdinand" moment that starts a world war and signals the end of the US as a top superpower, and the end of constitutional civil liberties as we've known them for the people in the US.
Strat
Re:Cool (Score:4, Informative)
World War 3 is what is being staged here. Russia has already sent a fleet to the area. Both Russia and China have warned the US not to strike Syria.
That was not said at all. They cautioned about leaping to conclusions about the nature of the attack and should let the weapons inspectors finish their investigation. They said, literally, "Military strikes could have catastrophic consequences for the entire region." No one said anything about war, except Iran, who no one cares about. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800 [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Would we agree if we knew what was really going on?
Wow... I RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
And saw the American public ripping the big government a new asshole.
Good job peeps. Keep doin gods work.
We could spend this money almost any other way and do much more good.
Re: (Score:2)
We'd spend it bailing out corporations or fighting for corporate interests overseas, in another sandlot where we justify our actions with some manufactured humanitarian atrocity.
And you're still right, because at least with either of those things, the actions are not directly against the population and citizens of this government, itself.
Open Source (Score:4, Interesting)
Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
The notion of CIA and "open" impacts my mind pretty much as cognitive dissonance.
If I leave aside the software context and put "CIA + open source" alongside, the impact is double (what the hell can be source from CIA and still be open?)
Re:Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
Come on folks... read the damn info. The site says that "open source" data is "publicly available information appearing in print or electronic form". I'm gonna speculate part of the open source budget goes towards the salaries of linguists, computers for translation and the support staff, etc.
There's also a government website: www.opensource.gov
Re:Open Source (Score:4, Informative)
Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
The notion of CIA and "open" impacts my mind pretty much as cognitive dissonance. If I leave aside the software context and put "CIA + open source" alongside, the impact is double (what the hell can be source from CIA and still be open?)
IIRC, Open source in this context refers to intelligence gathering from public sources like newspapers and public records and such.
Re:Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I was wondering where all the upstream contributions were, or if this was just support licenses for Red Hat and Apache.
Re: (Score:2)
Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
If you want to believe their lies, I have have some bottom land for sale along the Mississippi, or how about a bridge in New York City, real cheap, almost nothing.
Different "open source" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Open source is easy stuff like newspapers from other parts of the world and other forms of public record.
Bomb Syria (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny thing, that.
When Bush did it, Obama (rightfully) stated "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
And Biden stated "I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the presid
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So let's wait for a UN mandate and then act on that. And let's wait until there is verification that this is actually happening. John Kerry said something to the effect of "You can't deny that these horrible atrocities of chemical warfare on their own people are happening -- we have all seen the evidence first hand, on social media".
Sorry, but youtube is not "witnessing evidence first hand". I saw a video of a man flying with man-made wings, lifting off the ground and high into the air. That didn't mean it
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is... they have no plans to remove Assad from power. That would almost have a point. They are just going to dump a few hundred cruise missiles in a civil war.
An action with the desired effect of removing Assad would require us to actually put troops in there, or at least advisers. Otherwise, we aren't doing anything to remove Assad. The resistance might still win, but that wouldn't be us.
We're just shooting at them because chemical weapons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fool me once (Iraq, Afghanistan), shame on - shame on you.
Fool me (Lybia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon and so on down the road) -- you can't get fooled again.
Except that, clearly, we can.
Oversight (Score:4, Interesting)
If we are ever going to rein in our out of control government we desperately need to have all the public scrutiny we can get. Maybe even put some penalties up, say your budget gets slashed by a billion dollars every time one of your officials gets caught lying to congress or gets caught up in a scandal.
Re:Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot - and other news aggregation websites - should put warning labels on links that go to leaked classified information. Some people can get into trouble for viewing it. I love reading it, but some people who read Slashdot work in the classified world and have to work under some of its sillier rules. (Like having to wipe your unclassified work computer because it got Top Secret data on it from the Washington Post.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:2)
So if there were an article on a news site about top secret news but it was pretend and wasn't really top secret would you still have to wipe your computer? If yes, then you will be wiping your computer often. If no, then you get acknowledgment if a leak is actually true or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect a lot of internal testing, experts, deep staff tracking, random chats with strangers after work about life at bars/gyms/book clubs (fiction only).
Report any chats you have with strangers, anyone could be a loyalty test.
Direct and covert offers to 'buy' info on work topics as huge new loyalty budgets spin up.
If you really want to keep your job, report coworkers reading news aggregation websit
Re: (Score:3)
No. That's no joke. It's irrelevant from where and how you got the classified documents in your hands. If you are not supposed to have them, you'll can get into a lot of trouble. The only way out of bigger trouble is most likely to fill an incident report, which will, i guess, ruin your day, your work and your computer. Possibly your private stuff as well back home.
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:5, Insightful)
No, fuck that. It's our moral responsibility to make sure this shit hits every wall in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this.
Prior restraint is bollocks.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
That's not prior restraint, that's information labeling. Prior restraint is when the government says you can't publish it.
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:5, Insightful)
No, fuck that. It's our moral responsibility to make sure this shit hits every wall in the room.
Right - don't enable the bastards. Does a spook have to spend three days re-installing his PC because some stupid rule says that he has to if he reads a WashPo article? Good, that's three days less that he can be doing other damage.
Somebody give me a "Top Secret" nugget that's been in the MSM for months so I can I can put in my .sig.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of staff will for the first time face the reality/limits of their rights and freedoms and wonder about their own internet logs.
Self censorship takes over and very well educated staff members notes group think setting in.
Thats why the more successful clandestine services ensure staff read as much as they can and offer to keep their education going.
Languages, propaganda, protest mo
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the agency responsible for all that shouldn't be the same agency looking at US citizens.
That's not a moral, or even constitutional issue. It's a management one.
Go through all this data to do any of the things you refer to above are specific tasks. Things no one has a problem with. The problem comes when the NSA has information overload because every AT&T office in the middle of no where has a tap on it. I hope that last statement was just hyperbole, but you get my point.
Terrorism is such a nebulous term in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. It's being used to justify huge amounts of departmental overreach. I want the NSA to watch Russia, and Iran, and North Korea. What I don't want is for them to watch everyone at home. Doing so makes as much institutional sense as replacing policemen with soldiers.
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:5, Insightful)
Like making sure Russia isn't cheating on its ballistic missile treaty obligations? Like looking for North Korea making preparations to launch missiles at Japan? Like Iran assembling a nuclear warhead? I think you have a "funny" idea there, probably more than one.
Your scare tactics don't work on me - I don't live in fear, and America doesn't work when people do (even Francis Scott Key got that right) . Japan can worry about Japan. Russia isn't planning to bomb the world. Iran hasn't started a war with another country in 150 years. If you're afraid of Iran, you should look at the CIA, which even admitted this week to overthrowing its democracy and installing the government that led directly to the Islamic Revolution and the current clusterfuck of a government they have there.
America is not the World Police, but the US intelligence agencies do violate our highest laws (and International law) every single day. We need to take care of our internal problems as our primary responsibility.
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:5, Insightful)
I did notice your name on several interesting posts during last 2 weeks, but this time I'm not so sure that you are right.
When talking how Iran menaces it's neighbors it reminds me of this picture [thetruthseeker.co.uk]. If you say that that Iran threatens the world supply of oil by blocking the Persian Gulf - yes, they do. Does that mean that you can force them to give up their right to control their territorial waters? Do you have some god-given right to that oil or what? Yes, it would cause troubles world wide if they did that. So we just march in and take over the oil reserves? If you say they were involved with Beirut bombing - that was 30 years ago. Move on. There is no point in bringing up that stuff again again - apart from learning from past mistakes. If you describe what USSR/Russia did 50 years ago ... the politicians as well as foreign politics of both USSR and USA changed a lot since that time. When the ballistic rockets start flying, they will fly over my head, not yours - because I live in central Europe. If Russia decides to take out the radar control stations that give information to US rockets, they will hit my country, not yours. Americans seem to be keen on going into military actions around the world - because it is happening far away from them. It is easy to order military strikes when you do that with remote control and drones. When all you see is the footage on CNN. Russia isn't positioning military bases outside of their territory - USA does that. And everybody caves in [rt.com] because of USA power. You are becoming a bully.
America may not be the "World Police," but America has interests around the world. Sure. I'm interested in living like a millionaire sipping mojito on a beach. Does not give me right to force someone to give me their stuff and land.
Don't be mistaken. I'm not supporting Russia/Putin and I'm not supporting Iran developing nuclear weapons nor Syria using chemical weapons. I'm just much closer to the scene and I don't see the world powers trying to resolve the situation with minimum required force.
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:4, Informative)
if you haven't paid attention to the many other threads, your computer has to be wiped. as a programmer I keep notes and snippets and URLs and all kinds of helpful stuff handy. not to mention the installation and config.
if I worked on a controlled pc and clicked an interesting link while researching why Md5 is harmful so u can explain why a Microsoft patch disables cert checimg for md5 signatures, I have to start over.
a controlled computer, without being able to set options like disabling scripts, and likely ie8, on potentially underpowered hardware is a recipe for browser unresponsiveness. I constantly mis- click on android browsers, and dad's ie8 is slower than sloth crap.
a warning would be helpful, and if you still disagree, you should do all of your computing from a livecd with a 3.5" floppy for storage, to remind yourself what starting over entails.
assuming that source is controlled, mails are on the server, and your home drive is not local, most people would be down at least a day, best case, and slower than normal for weeks.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't surf the internet from your spy computer. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot - and other news aggregation websites - should put warning labels on links that go to leaked classified information. Some people can get into trouble for viewing it. I love reading it, but some people who read Slashdot work in the classified world and have to work under some of its sillier rules. (Like having to wipe your unclassified work computer because it got Top Secret data on it from the Washington Post.)
You chose to work for the Devil. It turns out, sometimes the Devil wants his due.
That's your problem. So fucking tired of every edge-case person wanting the whole rest of the world to accommodate them. It's self-important entitlement at its finest.
Here's an idea: don't click on links that talking about US intelligence agencies. Simple!
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if it's available to all and sundry on the internet, it is no longer secret, let alone Top Secret. The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, the train's left the platform, etc.
If institutions fail to adapt to the changing world, that's their problem, not the world's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but it doesn't stop being classified if it is stolen and published. The only way it stops being classified is to be declassified in the usual way. There are lots of reasons for that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of reasons for that.
Are any of those reasons valid after they have been uploaded and spread around the internet?
It HAS to be about retribution, and not secrecy. IT'S ON THE FRIKKING INTERNET ALREADY!!!
Re: (Score:2)
We went over this when wikileaks Material was posted to /.
It's your responsibility. Not the site's. Otherwise, they'd have to accomodate to every small request.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the words "Intelligence Black Budget" didn't clue you in?
Re: (Score:2)
Nahhh - some people probably think it's the government's budget for black SUV's. And, that would be "news for nerds" based on all the options and accessories to be found in said black SUV's.
I saw one not long ago, in Broken Bow, Oklahoma. Damned thing was completely blacked out, violating any and all laws about tinted windshields. There had to be six antenna sticking up out of it, maybe more. I only saw it for a couple seconds, in cross traffic at one of the three red light intersections in town. Wonde
Re: (Score:2)
Hi from Stillwater!
Don't bet the farm on a Fed vehicle, the description sounds like our own Tri-County Task Force, made up of all local law enforcement agencies.
There has been on ongoing trend in civil law enforcement to become more 'militarized' since 9/11 in the USA.
It's starting to remind me of the rise of Nazi Germany. Not total, but just starting....
Before you jump to conclusions, check it out.
Re:Links to classified data should be labeled (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot - and other news aggregation websites - should put warning labels on links that go to leaked classified information.
yes, that's it, let's have everyone go out of our way to help those poor souls like you that are helping perpetuate the problem. oh wait, here's a better idea, dont work for criminals or companies that help them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we take responsibility for your choices and actions?
If you work with classified info, then you should know better than to let your curiosity rule over responsibility. 'Do you know how curiosity killed the cat?'
Not all of us are molded to think this way. Some of us prefer a more open and honest government that is truly ' by the people, for the people', as advertised!
I your case(and those similar/applicable), I will concede that the above was a bit harsh. I meant no insult...consider it a warning
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, they are doing something wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
$52 billion? That's like burning up a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet every year.
With that amount of money spent, there shouldn't a terrorist left breathing on the face of the planet.
Um, Secret Squirrel guys, I think that you are doing something completely wrong with that money. I know that you like listening to other folks telephone calls, but clearly, this isn't the way.
Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, I see you're mistake. This budget has absolutely nothing to do with terrorists. As with all government programs its primary goal is in justifying its own existence.
Re: (Score:2)
The budget is for intelligence, of which terrorism is just one slice. Other slices keep track of the ballistic missile and nuclear programs of Iran and North Korean. Another slice keeps tabs of Russia to check and see if it is cheating on its nuclear missile and conventional forces treaty obligations. Another slice is watching Russian submarines and bombers as they have restarted their probes of NATO and US/Canadian territory. Another slice is watching China and its occupation of territory claimed by In
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions [wikipedia.org]
Much of that seems to been keeping the world in a mess so it needs US help/arms and political cover/support.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying... It's not all bad? Please.
You zoom in on Iran, conveniently glossing over the huge list of entirely uncontroversial examples of US-backed overthrows of democratically elected regimes (*).
But you fail to notice -- or just pretend to -- that the inked article does not mention the 1979 Islamic revolution which is what you discuss. I think you've got that wrong too, but let's put that aside. The article discusses the overthrow of Mossadegh in the 1953, and includes this gem:
In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup
(*) This list shou
Re:Clearly, they are doing something wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfectly reasonable statement, but wrong. The goals of the program are being well met -- it's just that you misunderstand the goal, which is really to funnel money into the privatized defence/intelligence community.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
OK then, be hard on them. Kick the toy soldiers out and replace them with real ones. Nowhere near as many will be needed and the outsourced money funnels will be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't well known in the "intelligence community", they were waiting for the non-existent ace in the hole to come out and were utterly dumbfounded when it didn't. Their paranoia had them living in a fantasy world where the decades long economic problems of the USSR were "just what they want us to think".
That's why I've listed that as a truly "epic fail". Too much SIGINT and not enough HUMINT meant a major diver
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose is to have an impressive-looking budget to create the *appearance* of Doing Something(tm).
They achieve that more effectively by not spending the money sensibly.
Re: (Score:2)
With that amount of money spent, there shouldn't a terrorist left breathing on the face of the planet.
That's crazy talk. If they did that, then how would they get $52 billion next year? The US government is a place where one gets paid generously to not do their job.
Too much secrecy, not too little, is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Thought experiment: What if just before we went into Vietnam and Iraq, someone leaked all our intelligence about these countries. There is a good chance the outcry would have stopped these stupid/criminal wars.
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not identical, but not that different either.
Re:Too much secrecy, not too little, is the proble (Score:5, Informative)
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=vietnam+CIA+false+flag+ [google.com]
Like Iraq, Vietnam was also based on manufactured false information. You may limit your reading to the wikis, or you may dig deeper, as you wish. But, Tonkin Bay, which was the primary igniter in getting our troops into Vietnam was entirely a false flag operation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you're completely wrong about Vietnam.
Vietnam started at the request of France. They wanted the US military to help back them up in Vietnam because they were losing control of it [Vietnam being a colony of France at the time]. France turned the revolution in Vietnam into a civil war, with the revolutionaries turning into the VC and the other side becoming our guys. The US was pulled wholesale into the conflict by the NSA and the Johnson administration distorting information around the gulf of tonkin inci
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries have a file or team working on that tricky problem. What to do when the war toll, contractor prices, taxes and safe jobs get out of sync and real people fill the streets of a few cities in protest.
What can be done? Print more cash and offer big jumps to wage, stock and pension plans?
Celebrity fun? A calming national event?
Fine contractors and expose their political friends?
Ask the special forces and the trusted military if they have an
What is new (Score:2)
Spending has been sort of public but out by 50% seems too low?
Offensive cyber-operations - very public in many comments about direction changes and new missions, recruiting needs.
Insider threats - that is interesting. All the new contractors and rushed language needs add up to people with pasts and family connections/faith well outside the USA.
The "anomalous behaviour" has been
May well be the Most Transparent Administration... (Score:5, Insightful)
...thanks to Edward Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
The public needs to know about these budgets. Now we have no way to know the growth rate of this budget over the years and we have no real way to know if these agencies get enough money or too much money. So what good is a vote? One can not vote with any clarity when important information is held back.
My favorite part (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, especially when NASA's budget is ~0.1% of GDP. We bitch about NASA's inability to get anywhere these days, but here the NSA is blowing far more money doing far far less. I hope the Republicans can finally jump on this bandwagon now that the issue can be framed as "government waste" instead of "protection from terrorists". It amazes me that conservatives have given Obama such a free pass on all of this so far. Hopefully that changes now.
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me that conservatives have given Obama such a free pass on all of this so far. Hopefully that changes now.
It amazes me how you or anyone else can see this happen time and time again and still believe that we have two distinct parties.
Jefferson knew what a two-party system would become and specifically warned against it. At some point they both realize they can play the voters in the middle, sort of like "good cop, bad cop". For maximum effect, switch roles once in a while. Then people support a given one for irrational, emotional, tribal, "my team" reasons and stop thinking critically. Take a hard look at the world of US politics and tell me this isn't exactly what's happening. Then make the next tiny leap and understand that someone definitely benefits from this, and it is not accidental.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Informative)
Being mathematically accurate does not mean that it's a reasonable metric. GDP is not a measure of government spending. Comparing a subset of government spending to a measure of something other than government spending is meaningless without prior knowledge of other facts, like the ratio of total government spending to GDP, for example. It's comparing apples to bushels: you have to know how many apples in a bushel before the comparison makes any sense. That makes it unreasonable.
In addition, there's no possible reason for Clapper to be using that specific metric, even if it were reasonable. The argument can be made that comparing entitlement and defense spending to GDP can be informative, because those two subsets of spending can be used as proxies for, respectively, the income of a certain population subset and the health of a manufacturing industry subset. But unless you're suggesting that the intelligence community represents an important share either of the population or of industry, then comparing its budget to GDP is not informative. It's simply being used as a tool to lower people's perception of the amount of money being spent. It's a comparison made to obfuscase, not to inform. That makes it laughable.
Sweet Quote (Score:3)
"To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the Community." (p. 5)
Yet they STILL didn't stop Boston (Score:3)
Over 50 BILLION dollars and they didn't catch and stop the Boston bombers.
<SARCASM>What a great investment.</SARCASM>
It makes it worth every penny to spy on the whole nation and surrounding world, doesn't it?
Re:Yet they STILL didn't stop Boston (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but they *did* convince people that they were "being rescued" by the end of an assault rifle barrel when being forced to stay in their homes and then forced at gunpoint to get out of their homes for mandatory searches.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, that's about 5x the revenue of the entire NFL, so it must be at least 5x as important.
At least they're both non-profits....
Re: (Score:3)