by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @01:22PM (#9869858)
from the article: Christy had mentioned that one of the things they were doing at Defcon was recruiting. He went on to tell the crowd that if they were interested, and "had not gone over the line," to talk to him afterwards. The "had not gone over the line" comment became one of the hottest topics during the Q&A.
It appears that the lessons the intelligence community has learned from 9/11 have not yet trickled all the way down through the federal bureaucracy -- particularly that bit about the failure of our intelligence pre-9/11 being primarily because of our loss of vital HUMINT owing to both budget and moral directives. When the CIA was told it could only use politically correct HUMINT operatives, it lost its most vital flow of intelligence.
Actually, I think the remark in question -- "had not gone over the line" -- meant no the criminal record, stable finances, etc. required of regular government employees who need clearances, like programmers and sys admins. IOW, they were looking for technical staffers for work at HQ.
The PC'ness at the CIA regarding HUMINT referred to who they could and couldn't hire as intelligence sources. E.g. (hypothetical examples here), several years ago, the CIA could hire a mid-level Iraqi military paper-pusher to smuggle out documents about what Saddam was up to, but at the same time couldn't hire a low-level al Qaeda operative to do the same because he's gone through terror training involving weapon experiments on animals. Even if the operative could give excrutiating details about the next terror strike (such as time/place/MO), he had done those evil experiments on animals, which somehow made him ineligible for the CIA payroll. (How such rules came into effect I dont know)
Whether or not US intelligence has changed this since 9/11 I dont know the answer. I do know that one such scenario I described above was something discussed at length by news orgs immediately after 9/11 as speculation for why the US intelligence failed. (IMO, there shouldn't be such silly restrictions on who the CIA can hire as sources. If the source gives good info, pay him for it to encourage more. If he don't, or the stuff he gives is turns out to be unreliable, stop paying him.)
But as for "going over the line" - for what the guy was looking for in personnel, he means things like ability to pee in a cup cleanly, unlike Ricky Williams, and not having a rap sheet.
I would agree with you in that the Feds are looking for those who are generally upstanding citizens who are not, and have not been, career criminals, before they filled out the application forms.
What they leave out the picture are grayer operations, where they do in fact work with criminals. But such actions are almost always intended to catch bigger fish and not to compromise the security of the country as a whole. Recall the American truck driver who was a foot soldier for al Qaeda. (This was in the l
They had caught the guy, then offered him lighter dealings in exchange for information of and with his superiors.
This is how things are supposed to work. The FBI and Justice Dept have worked this way with organized crime for decades. Nab a guy for something small, plea bargain, find out what the boss has been up to, get him to wear a wire, etc, and get the leadership in jail with a nice long sentence. In exchange the guy gets only probation, and if necessary, witness protection for life (which makes p
For those wondering what the Ricky Williams remark is about: Williams was college football (american football) player in the US who won the Heissman trophy as a senior. The trophy is the national MVP awarded annually to a top notch NCAA football player.
Williams then entered the NFL (National Football League) and was drafted by (IIRC) the Miami Dolphins about 5 years ago with great ambition and potential. He did ok. Not great, but not bad either. But he was certainly not the player he was expected to be
We should not be paying Al Qaeda operatives for giving us good info... We should give them their due payment if they DON'T. The main failing of the system has been to use the unscrupulous to our own ends - and then they turn on us! I say cut the crap and start rolling out the much overdue discipline. We haven't even started yet.
"but at the same time couldn't hire a low-level al Qaeda operative to do the same because he's gone through terror training involving weapon experiments on animals."
9/11 lessons (Score:5, Interesting)
Christy had mentioned that one of the things they were doing at Defcon was recruiting. He went on to tell the crowd that if they were interested, and "had not gone over the line," to talk to him afterwards. The "had not gone over the line" comment became one of the hottest topics during the Q&A.
It appears that the lessons the intelligence community has learned from 9/11 have not yet trickled all the way down through the federal bureaucracy -- particularly that bit about the failure of our intelligence pre-9/11 being primarily because of our loss of vital HUMINT owing to both budget and moral directives. When the CIA was told it could only use politically correct HUMINT operatives, it lost its most vital flow of intelligence.
Actually, I think the remark in question -- "had not gone over the line" -- meant no the criminal record, stable finances, etc. required of regular government employees who need clearances, like programmers and sys admins. IOW, they were looking for technical staffers for work at HQ.
The PC'ness at the CIA regarding HUMINT referred to who they could and couldn't hire as intelligence sources. E.g. (hypothetical examples here), several years ago, the CIA could hire a mid-level Iraqi military paper-pusher to smuggle out documents about what Saddam was up to, but at the same time couldn't hire a low-level al Qaeda operative to do the same because he's gone through terror training involving weapon experiments on animals. Even if the operative could give excrutiating details about the next terror strike (such as time/place/MO), he had done those evil experiments on animals, which somehow made him ineligible for the CIA payroll. (How such rules came into effect I dont know)
Whether or not US intelligence has changed this since 9/11 I dont know the answer. I do know that one such scenario I described above was something discussed at length by news orgs immediately after 9/11 as speculation for why the US intelligence failed. (IMO, there shouldn't be such silly restrictions on who the CIA can hire as sources. If the source gives good info, pay him for it to encourage more. If he don't, or the stuff he gives is turns out to be unreliable, stop paying him.)
But as for "going over the line" - for what the guy was looking for in personnel, he means things like ability to pee in a cup cleanly, unlike Ricky Williams, and not having a rap sheet.
Re:9/11 lessons (Score:2)
What they leave out the picture are grayer operations, where they do in fact work with criminals. But such actions are almost always intended to catch bigger fish and not to compromise the security of the country as a whole. Recall the American truck driver who was a foot soldier for al Qaeda. (This was in the l
Re:9/11 lessons (Score:0)
This is how things are supposed to work. The FBI and Justice Dept have worked this way with organized crime for decades. Nab a guy for something small, plea bargain, find out what the boss has been up to, get him to wear a wire, etc, and get the leadership in jail with a nice long sentence. In exchange the guy gets only probation, and if necessary, witness protection for life (which makes p
Re:9/11 lessons (Score:0)
Williams then entered the NFL (National Football League) and was drafted by (IIRC) the Miami Dolphins about 5 years ago with great ambition and potential. He did ok. Not great, but not bad either. But he was certainly not the player he was expected to be
Re:9/11 lessons (Score:0)
The main failing of the system has been to use the unscrupulous to our own ends - and then they turn on us!
I say cut the crap and start rolling out the much overdue discipline. We haven't even started yet.
Re:9/11 lessons (Score:0)
Look up info on "School of the Americas".