Want to know how little our police/intelligence agencies seem to have learned from their failures prior to 9/11?
I'm afraid we don't need Black Hat/Defcon to tell us this. Just yesterday we had major terrorism alerts about specific targets and today we find out the information was all years old. Does that mean the buildings weren't targets still? Well seeing as some of the info went back prior to 9/11 it would make it seem a fairly safe bet that the seriousness of the threat was vastly overstated.
I think the big thing that the government did just learn is that the president can stand on TV and announce the creation of an "intelligence czar" and not one damned person in the room will jump up and say "So what in the name of the sweet baby Jebuz is Tom frigging Ridge, then? Huh?"
That scares me more than the Al Quaedas, kids.
I think the big thing that the government did just learn is that the president can stand on TV and announce the creation of an "intelligence czar" and not one damned person in the room will jump up and say "So what in the name of the sweet baby Jebuz is Tom frigging Ridge, then? Huh?" That scares me more than the Al Quaedas, kids.
Well I didn't jump up and say it but I've been wondering myself why we need one, as you point out, what's Tom Ridge for? I thought he, and his new department of Homeland Secu
Well I didn't jump up and say it but I've been wondering myself why we need one, as you point out, what's Tom Ridge for? I thought he, and his new department of Homeland Security, were supposed to at least coordinate info from various agencies.
Putting aside the question of whether either position is a good idea, I don't quite get what you guys are so puzzled about. Homeland Security is supposed to maintain domestic security operations and, as you say, filter relevant intelligence info. It's not supposed to
My next big question is about why we keep announcing "czars" of any kind. Considering the overwhelming success of the drug czar and his friends, it seems we'd have moved on to queens or overlords or all-seeing grand poobahs by now.
What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm afraid we don't need Black Hat/Defcon to tell us this. Just yesterday we had major terrorism alerts about specific targets and today we find out the information was all years old. Does that mean the buildings weren't targets still? Well seeing as some of the info went back prior to 9/11 it would make it seem a fairly safe bet that the seriousness of the threat was vastly overstated.
S
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:2)
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:2)
Well I didn't jump up and say it but I've been wondering myself why we need one, as you point out, what's Tom Ridge for? I thought he, and his new department of Homeland Secu
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:2, Informative)
Putting aside the question of whether either position is a good idea, I don't quite get what you guys are so puzzled about. Homeland Security is supposed to maintain domestic security operations and, as you say, filter relevant intelligence info. It's not supposed to
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:2)
Personally, I mislike the idea intensely, as it reminds me a bit much of J Edgar back in the day....
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:2)
My next big question is about why we keep announcing "czars" of any kind. Considering the overwhelming success of the drug czar and his friends, it seems we'd have moved on to queens or overlords or all-seeing grand poobahs by now.
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:2)
His job title would probably Secretary of Intelligence, if it weren't for all the jokes the title leaves room for.
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned. (Score:2)