Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Dangers of consolidating intelligence

  1. Feb 8, 2006 #1

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Before 9/11 we've had CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, etc; but now they've been consolidated into DHS under premise that it would be easier/better/more efficient to collect and share information, even though it was efficient enough to warn the right people before (http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html). They justify this with scare tactics as if they are working to find terrorists.

    From 'Patriot' bill to H.R. 418 - REAL ID bill - more government involvement and more personal freedom infringements. I ask therefore, at the rate this is going, did we give the government too much power?

    The CIA has recruited and trained Bin Laden back in the 80's and got him to do their dirty bidding for years. Was he again hired by CIA to execute 9/11 attacks? Who benefits from 9/11, other than increase in military spending, invasion of an oil-rich country, lavish government contracts with corporations, and an escalating conflict with Iran. Not to mention that by all mathematical logic there are only a number of people who are or have been involved (and benefited) with aforementioned statements and that they are all in executive branch today.

    [fixed your link -Russ]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 8, 2006 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure what you were getting at in the first part - you seem to be saying that intel doesn't need to be shared between the departments and justifying that with a link that talks about how intelligence failed. :confused: There was a lot that was known, but there was also a lot that wasn't known by the right people and a lot of dots that weren't connected.

    Unless, that is, you mean to use that link as evidence that 9/11 could have been prevented because, as you are hinting at in the second part, that the attacks were carried out under the orders of the US government.

    That falls into the category of conspiracy theory and just fyi, that particular conspiracy theory has been nothing but trouble on this forum. If you have an argument to make about why intelligence shouldn't be shared that doesn't involve a 9/11 conspiracy theory, I suggest you make it otherwise this is just going to degrade into one of those conspiracy theory threads and need to be closed.
     
  4. Feb 8, 2006 #3

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Shared databases for purposes of law enforcement have been helpful and needed. In regard to the Patriot Act, and more recently NSA activity brought to public attention, the concern is use of data not related to, or used for criminal/terrorist activity. As always there is a balance needed.

    In regard to 9-11, I think it is evident that memos/information were not acted upon properly, as shown in earlier threads on the topic. To say that the memos/information were ignored on purpose, i.e., with thoughts that an attack would provide the catalyst to pursue a particular agenda may not be that far fetched -- Who would have thought that the attack would be so devastating? But to say that the government itself (BushCo) actually orchestrated it is something we should all hope could never be true.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  5. Feb 8, 2006 #4

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If I told you that a few oil stock owners and benefeciaries were to hinder with the military and allowed a terrorist attack to happen - would you classify this as a conspiracy theory? Now what if I put names to the faces? On June 1, 2001, NORAD was ordered to transfer scramble authority to Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld). Meaning that he was now in charge of issuing scramble orders. According to 9/11 commision: General Larry Arnold's orders in NORAD chat log: “10:31 Vice President [Cheney] has cleared us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down (see 10:14 a.m.) if they do not respond, per CONR CC [General Arnold].” On 9/11 Rumsfeld "wasn't aware" of attacks until 10:39 - when he got to speak with the Vice President. Why would scramble orders be rerouted to a Secretary of Defense?

    http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf - signed by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, June 1, 2001.

    Bullhonkey! Give me one example where a shared interdepartmental database led to an arrest and conviction of a terrorist?

    The consolidation of intelligence will create one database, not only more vulnerable to inflitration, but also capable of tracking your every move if you are defined as 'terrorist' under 'Patriot' act. Meaning every camera on the street can ID your face and trace your movements, your credit card purchases, your loans, your payments, your FICO score, your traffic tickets, what you buy, what route you take - where you get off train, where you get on. And with a REAL ID coming soon they'll have an easier way to implement this. Your name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, fingerprint+retinal scan, and a "common machine-readable technology" - that Homeland Security will decide on - wrapped in RFID+barcode technology.

    http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html

    Guess what? 1984 is almost here.


    You know, its funny how the X Files has precognitive vision of those events. They've had the pilot episode about a plane being directed to hit WTC (completed 9/11/2001), they've had the FEMA takeover plan in another episode (control over New Orleans handed over to FEMA - the famous troops on APCs picture), and so on.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  6. Feb 8, 2006 #5
    I think we all know it easily COULD be true with the right (or wrong, however you look at it) people in office. The real question is whether or not it IS true. If it were proven absolutely without a doubt that 9/11 was not a scheme by the current administration, the question is then whether there are the right people in office with the current administration to be able to pull something like this off. Personally I think that the current administration would be most likely of all administrations in history to do it.
     
  7. Feb 8, 2006 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yeah, that all looks like conspiracy theory to me, cronxeh
     
  8. Feb 9, 2006 #7

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Fine, I guess its just a co-incidence. The President is sworn in on January, scramble orders changed 5 months later, a terrorist attack happens 4 months later, 1 month later OHS created, week later the Patriot Act passed..

    hey, I guess its just statistically probable, eh?
     
  9. Feb 9, 2006 #8
    Cronex

    You forgot that On 11 September the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama." and George W. Bush's father

    And on september 14 a secret flight inside the US that is in violation of a national private airplane flight ban, members of the bin Laden family and Saudi royalty quietly depart the US.

    About 140 Saudis, including around 24 members of the bin Laden family, are passengers in these flights. The identities of most of these passengers are not known. However, some of the passengers include:

    -The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot. Contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda.

    -Abdullah bin Laden and Omar bin Laden, cousins of bin Laden. The governments of India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Bosnia have all accused WAMY of funding terrorism. four of the 9/11 hijackers briefly live in the town of Falls Church, Virginia, three blocks from the WAMY office headed by Abdullah bin Laden.

    -Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen. He is a prominent Saudi official who is in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 9/11

    etc. etc.

    Could someone Please explain why the goverment alowed all this people to secretly leave the country, the days after 9-11 even when there was a complete air flight ban in the US

    Edit: wait!!! now i get it, there wasn't ood share of information between the diferent agencies of the us gov. so they didn't know that Omar bin Laden was a cousing of osama, then they let them go.. Damn they almost get them! :D
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  10. Feb 9, 2006 #9

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I dont care about the bin laden - he is a nobody and has always been just a tool of others who shaped his dialysis-driven body with senile mind into their personal agenda. He's been used from the 80's for last 25 years. He doesnt run MY military and he doesnt shape MY life - MY GOVERNMENT does, and justifies this with their incompetence to catch a few guys in Afghanistan.

    And when they want to use the argument that the terrorists are already here - I say its time to IMPEACH the current government because they havent done anything real to protect the southern borders. Absolutely nothing!
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  11. Feb 9, 2006 #10
    What is more amazing is how only TWO candidates represents 99% of the entire population of 350 millon people....
    Or the american people are all the same, all equal, with the same interests, problems, and method of fixing things.. or they are being manipulated by the media...
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  12. Feb 9, 2006 #11
    Okay, I can tell this is going to take awhile. Let's start with the first post.

    "Before 9/11 we've had CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, etc; but now they've been consolidated into DHS under premise that it would be easier/better/more efficient to collect and share information,"

    The 15 members of the US intel community - of which you mentioned 5 above - have been reorganized under the DNI - (Director or directorate of National Intelligence, which is currently headed by fmr ambassador John Negroponte and former NSA director Michael Hayden) and not the DHS (Dept of Homeland Security). Secondly, this is mostly a top level reorganization. The DNI currently has something like 1500 members, which in DC bureaucracy is akin to about nothing. And while the agencies are working to coordinate, especially in the forms of the JTTF (joint terrorism task foce) and in the national threat assesment field, their respective database remain largely autonomous. The biggest change is that the Director of Central Intelligence (currently Porter Goss) is now no longer also the Director of Intelligence (Negroponte).

    "From 'Patriot' bill to H.R. 418 - REAL ID bill - more government involvement and more personal freedom infringements."

    Terrorism, as an issue addressed by Congress, prior to 9/11/01 was mostly legislated as a foreign, political phenomenon. As such, it was limited to regulations that mostly applied to foreign nationals (not naturalized US citizens or green card holders). What this translated into was that the various law enforcing branches of gov't were not allowed to use the same tools that they'd been using for half a century on organized crime enterprises (like Cosa Nostra) and drug trafficking networks (like the Medellin cartel) on alleged or suspected terrorists. This again was because until 2001 these terrorists, legislatively, were seen more as political figures than as national security threats. Although the Patriot Act grants US law enforcement the power to use various types of Elint, sigint, and other methods, these methods are variations on the same theme that the USG has been using for 50 years.


    "The CIA has recruited and trained Bin Laden back in the 80's and got him to do their dirty bidding for years. Was he again hired by CIA to execute 9/11 attacks"

    This is simply incorrect. It is not true and is a myth that has been propogated since 9/11 by those who've not looked into the facts. The fact is that the CIA was involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980s (see Ghost Wars). Many of the actual documents pertaining to this involvement are now declassified (in part to address these myths) and are now available online from sites ending in .gov and .edu. They are .pdf scans of the actual documents that are blacked out in certain places. You can search for them on Google. In addition, and probably more reassuring to those who do not take the government's word, independent journalists have interviewed, researched, and written about the CIA's involvement in mujahedeen networks in the 1980s. The consensus, unaminously, by those who have actually been to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Gulf states is that the CIA did not recruit, train, or even fund Osama bin Laden and his Office of Services (which was the precursor to his al Qaeda, the base). OBL's (osama bin laden) mentor, Sheik Abdullah Azzam, was I think a Palestinian who played a significant role in mediating the exchanges of Gulf Arabs to the various Afghan militias who were in Afghanistan doing the fighting. Although there are several notable exceptions, most of OBL and Azzam's important work was done in Pakistan, where they were predominately in a liason role. OBL returned to Pakistan to found al Qaeda, which was to serve as a base for his continued worldwide jihad in the late 80s. While CIA agents have testified that some had heard (during the Soviet war) of a rich Saudi prince organizing Afghan Arabs, none said they trained or gave money to him. This is confirmed on numerous occasions, some by OBL himself, and is quite reasonable when you think that OBL, while a great organizer and leader, has no real weapons training (one of the CIA's roles was teaching folks how to use Stinger missiles) and already had a lot of money. Furthermore, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Saudi Arabia was very worried that Iraq, who had a superior military force, would simply move westward into KSA (kingdom of saudi arabia) and he thus offered his services and the business of his family - bin ladin construction - to militarize a lot of construction equipment and organize mujahid to defend KSA. the crown prince turned him down in favor of the US and NATO armies - a point which more than anything broke the back of the camel with OBL as the Western troops were infidels desecrating the holy land. From this point on, relations were hostile at best between OBL and the ruling family.

    This was the first post alone. I'm not sure I even want to get into the others. I've got nothing to gain from attacking you or getting into a conspiracy argument, so I'll probably not even address them. But I will leave it at this: there are literally volumes of printed works on these issues - some were done by the USG, others by independent journalists not even from (or cozy with) the US. Please read these. Most of the conspiracy points that are raised in this thread, or that are going to be, are addressed and demystified in great detail in these books. I admit things at first appear to be very fuzzy, but in truth that was Pakistan in the 1980s. I will say that the strangest conspiracy point/coincidence/whatever that I have read is indeed this Buzzy Krongold (or whatever) shorting the UAL and AAL stocks. But even this, yes this, was addressed in the 9/11 Comission Report, which I am willing to bet few if any of you have read cover to cover. It's a good place to start. There will never be a full, completely convincing explanation of everything that has occurred, just like there will never be a full, complete history of everything that happened in WWII. But we must be prepared to bow to reason and Occam's razor when the facts point you in that direction. Theories about holograms, WTC real estate insurance, and Israeli commandos simply don't make sense. Not to mention that the literature supporting these theories is about enough to make up one or two (disputed) chapters in one of the literally hundreds of accreditted sources of information on this topic. But if it's 5 years or so later and I am still having to recount history for ya'll, it is most likely a moot point.
     
  13. Feb 9, 2006 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I've been looking for info on this scramble order decision-level change, but haven't found any, so if you can provide a reference, I'd appreciate it.

    But just to make sure you are aware: the Sec Def is in the military chain of command, right above the branch secretaries and right below the President. An order such as the one you're talking about is serious enough that it needs to be handled by someone very high on the chain of command. Regardless, this scramble order thing doesn't have anything to do with anything, since all the planes except for the one that crashed in PA had already crashed before the FAA even looked to the military for assistance.

    Here is a list showing the top structure of the chain of command for the army (all the services are similar): http://www.eustis.army.mil/tasc/command_photos.htm
    Also, this quote above implies you don't understand the concept of a coincidence. Most of those actions are logical steps in a chain of events (so not a coincidence) and some are not - but none of that implys anything about what caused the chain of events.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  14. Feb 9, 2006 #13

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    I gave the link below:

    http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

    Signed by Sec of NAVY June 1 2001
     
  15. Feb 9, 2006 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ok, reading it - and referenced DOD doc 3025.15 (available HERE), I don't see any substantive changes to command authority there. Specifically, in 3025.15, part 4.4, it says that the Sec Def has approval authority for such instances as terrorist acts. 3025.15 is dated 2/18/97 and these directives are updated from time to time without substantive changes, so I suspect there were none in '97 either.

    In addition, 3025.15 provides, in part 4.7.1, for unit-level response in cases of imminent danger (no such response was requested by the FAA, but the mechanism is there) "to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions".

    So I thank you for the document itself, but do you have any source for the allegation you are making or any explanation for it? Where are you getting this idea from? It does not appear to be correct that a substantive change in command authority was made that affected (or could have affected) the events on 9/11.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Dangers of consolidating intelligence
Loading...