I Have A Question

[jks9199]

The implications of the reporting I have seen on this 'new' Iranian issue were that either the intel gathered was flawed or it was misinterpreted or ignored. As JKS pointed out, in the last 30 years there has been a change of emphasis in US intelligence gathering, at least. That change has brought to the fore mechanisms that are not as reliable as those formerly considered primary. The introduction of an additional level through which information has to pass could potentially be the 'bad' element.

I wouldn't say "not as reliable"; I'd say "differently reliable" or reliable for different matters.

Electronic interepts, wire taps, and other forms of ELINT are great -- for specific purposes and goals. But it sucks for others. Same thing with satellite photos; they'll see things you'll never get someone close enough to look at, without relying on someone else telling you.

But HUMINT -- spies -- is equally important. A spy can tell you what you can't see, and can't overhear. Or a spy can tell you whether what you saw or heard is significant...

But spies can be misled, too. I really believe that one of the reasons there was so much intelligence, for so many years, suggesting that Sadam Hussein was close to having WMD is simple; his own people lied to him. After all, if someone's got a history of killing the bearer of bad news, there's a damn good chance that you're gonna spin whatever you tell him into good news!

 

[Lisa]

Big thing I have noticed on this board, well, more like learned. It is that the people here are very passionate about their politics and their views. Over the last couple of days I have seen some real back handed comments directed at each other from all parties concerned.

This topic is going to become heated. It would be nice to see everyone keep it to the topic at hand and not direct it at each other as I really enjoy learning from those that know so much more about these things then I do.

All I am asking it to keep an open mind when it comes to the other persons point of view and don't make it personal.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Phase IV (post-major combat) Ops
Basically a prepared plan for what happens after the main fighting is over, a phase that I'm guessing should have started at "Mission Accomplished".

Article on Phase IV Operations
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_3_85/ai_n14695885


Sidebar:

elected (Twice now) President

Selected once, elected once.

 

[Big Don]

Phase IV (post-major combat) Ops
Basically a prepared plan for what happens after the main fighting is over, a phase that I'm guessing should have started at "Mission Accomplished".

Article on Phase IV Operations
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_3_85/ai_n14695885


Sidebar:

Selected once, elected once.

So then he should be running in 2008. Just to watch their heads Explode...

 

[Steel Tiger]

I wouldn't say "not as reliable"; I'd say "differently reliable" or reliable for different matters.

That's a good way of putting it I think.

Electronic interepts, wire taps, and other forms of ELINT are great -- for specific purposes and goals. But it sucks for others. Same thing with satellite photos; they'll see things you'll never get someone close enough to look at, without relying on someone else telling you.

But HUMINT -- spies -- is equally important. A spy can tell you what you can't see, and can't overhear. Or a spy can tell you whether what you saw or heard is significant...

Have intelligence services become overwhelmed by the technology now at their disposal? I mean these new systems generate a vast amount of information, and, I guess, in the past a lot of it would have been written off as unimportant, but now it is all being sifted through.

But spies can be misled, too. I really believe that one of the reasons there was so much intelligence, for so many years, suggesting that Sadam Hussein was close to having WMD is simple; his own people lied to him. After all, if someone's got a history of killing the bearer of bad news, there's a damn good chance that you're gonna spin whatever you tell him into good news!

I suppose it will always come down to whether or not the originating source is credible. I wonder to what extent prejudice and bias are in determining a sources credibility.

 

[jks9199]

Have intelligence services become overwhelmed by the technology now at their disposal? I mean these new systems generate a vast amount of information, and, I guess, in the past a lot of it would have been written off as unimportant, but now it is all being sifted through.

Has the raw data overwhelmed analysis? Probably, in some ways. It's also probably fed over-reliance on technical intel, rather than human intel because it's easier to quantify. And because technical intel feels "cleaner." Too often, the folks you have to deal with to collect human intel aren't exactly the salt of the Earth... though they may well be salty. It's disconcerting (I guess that's the best word) to have to deal with traitors or criminals, or to exploit human faults to compel them to turn.

I suppose it will always come down to whether or not the originating source is credible. I wonder to what extent prejudice and bias are in determining a sources credibility.

It all comes down to simple principles: verify and corroborrate the information you develop. That's why ELINT, SIGINT, HUMINT, and other forms of intel go hand in hand. For example, to use a situation I might encounter as a cop (the principle is the same, whether it's national strategic intel or criminal intel), say I have a known informant call me up tomorrow. He tells me that Abe Igdoper is going to drive his lime-green Cadillac from his home to NY tomorrow, and return the next day. During his trip, he's going to buy 10 kilos of coke. Oh, boy! Let's assume that the CI is known and reliable. I'm still going to confirm the info. Let's forget reality of timelines, budget, manpower, and assume that all the appropriate prosecutors and magistrates are actually on board and cooperative. I check DMV; he's got a lime-green Caddy... and he lives where the CI said. I even drive by, see the car and I see Igdoper go inside the house, using his key to unlock the door. We throw a wire on his phone, and learn that he's calling NY a lot, and even get a tap where he makes plans to stay overnight in NY on the day in question. Looking good... so we put a tail on him. We follow him to NY, and, consulting our counterparts in NY, and learn that the guy we see him meet with is known narcotics trafficker. We follow him home, and, someone's been writing the search warrant for his house as we're coming back. We let him walk in the door, and we greet him with the search warrant. We've corroborrated and verified the info from the CI. A similar process is supposed to be done with intelligence. But... just like cops sometimes get warrants for the wrong house because they didn't confirm the address -- intel agencies often don't want to talk to each other or share what they've learned.

 

[michaeledward]

The data contained in the NIE is not really ground breaking to anyone who has been paying attention. Seymour Hersh was reporting on Iran's non-nuclear-weapon development for over a year.

Charlie Rose hosted Mohammed El Baradai from the IAEA in the end of October and Mr. El Baradai said then that "No one believes" Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

The President's languages has been that Iran can not have the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon. Excuse me, Mr. President, but that train left the station a couple of decades ago. The knowledge on how to build a nuclear weapon can be found for free on the internet.

So, the intel in the NIE matches the information from other ~ non-US sources (which have pretty good track records, by the way).

The reason this is news, is because of the language coming from the President and his Administration.

 

[CuongNhuka]

"Its just another beat up like Iraq and the WMDs."

Well, Iraq really did have WMD's... thats a board catagory that includes not just nuclear weapons, but chemical weapons (mustard gas) and biological weapons (germ warfare), both of which were used by sadam aginst the Kurds and Iranians.

 

[Sukerkin]

Anyone like to hazard a guess who sold them (and the means of production) to him (Saddam Hussein that is)?

Now that's not a 'holier than thou' snide remark, I'm British after all and we've sold weapons to all sorts (including the Argentinians just before we went to war with them). Also, some of the nastier-than-most weapons came from the French but America bears a portion of the burden too.

Now business is business but along with the cash go the transaction records. What is the implication of this? That those that sold someone something will know how much of it he has.

There's a reason why no WMD's were found in the invasion of Irag - they didn't have any (or at least not militarily significant amounts). The members of the intelligence services would have a better idea than most about this and no doubt gave their best advice ... but that message gets distorted the higher up the political tree you go.

All I can say is that at least our (English) politicos had the decency to, sort of, admit they lied to us (shock!) after a decent amount of time had passed - of course, it could also be argued that those with any inkling of the state of world affairs never expected any WMD's to be found anyhow.

I've always held the position myself that a government should be as honest as it can about it's intentions on the world stage. You'd be surprised what a population will accept if you don't try to deceive them.

Likewise, a countries intelligence services need to try to be as straight as their trade allows with their politcal masters. I firmly believe that the hierarchy of the agencies, in part because it includes political appointees at various levels, corrupts the data as it rises up the chain, 'spinning' it the way they know their politcal superiors wish it to go.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, Iraq really did have WMD's... thats a board catagory that includes not just nuclear weapons, but chemical weapons (mustard gas) and biological weapons (germ warfare), both of which were used by sadam aginst the Kurds and Iranians.

Without a time qualifier, this statement is not very helpful.

With regards to the 'intelligence failures' referenced in the news conferences, we need to look at the intelligence being quoted by the Bush Adminstration in 2002.

Iraq did not have any Weapons of Mass Destruction from 1996 (or so) forward. That Hussein used Chemical Weapons in 1988, is hardly relevant to this discussion.

 

[michaeledward]

Interestingly ...

The New York Times published an article yesterday that the CIA had destroyed video tapes of interrogations of captured al Qaeda operatives. This is creating quite a stir.

In 2002 and 2003, the CIA captured and interrogated some ranking members of al Qaeda. The interrogations were video taped. In 2005, those video tapes were destroyed. The current director of the CIA, a military man, retired General Michael Hayden, has made a statement pretty similiar to 'There was no controlling legal authority' that required the tapes be kept. And that if the tapes were ever made public, the tapes could jeapordize CIA operatives safety.

This will be a bit of a problem, because apparently several Congessional and Administrative committees had asked for evidence and were not told of, and did not view these tapes. There was an interview with a member of the 911 commission this morning on the radio.

So, it may very well be that the Central Intelligence Agency did obstruct justice by destroying these tapes.

Of course, if the tapes showed illegal behavior ~ such as torture ~ destroying them would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.


More interestingly still, especially in light of Steel Tiger's question, is how did this information come to be known now? The New York Times was Vice President Cheney's favorite source to quote in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Of course, this could have everything to do with his Chief of Staff's relationship with one Judith Miller (aka Little Miss Run-A-Muk). The Vice President would have Mr. Libby 'leak' a report to Miller, who would publish it in the New York Times (the notoriously "Liberal" New York Times), and then the Vice President would appear on Meet the Press, (because Russert was the best place to control the message) and confirm the danger, free from apparent fingerprints.

This report, of actions two years old, smells to me like a 'bright shiny object'.

"Hey, everybody, look at this bright shiny object. Isn't it bright? Isn't it Shiny? Don't pay any attention to the fact that the President's story on the Iran secret nuclear weapons program has changed three times in three days. Move along. There is nothing to see related to the National Intelligence Estimate, and the President's lack of knowlege concerning it. Oh, and did you see this bright shiny object?"

Now, if the CIA had videotapes, and destroyed them. It may very well be that they obstructed justice. Investigations should be held to determine if that was so.

But, it should not distract from the fact that the Bush Administration has been beating the drums of war against a nuclear armed Iran, when our government intelligence agencies have been telling the Adminstration that no such danger exists.

 

[jks9199]

In 2002 and 2003, the CIA captured and interrogated some ranking members of al Qaeda. The interrogations were video taped. In 2005, those video tapes were destroyed. The current director of the CIA, a military man, retired General Michael Hayden, has made a statement pretty similiar to 'There was no controlling legal authority' that required the tapes be kept. And that if the tapes were ever made public, the tapes could jeapordize CIA operatives safety.

...

Of course, if the tapes showed illegal behavior ~ such as torture ~ destroying them would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Or, of course, it could be equally true that the tapes showed no wrongdoing, but would have revealed the identities of the people who were turned during the interrogation, the identities of the interrogators, and the identities of operatives, and were destroyed to protect all these identities.

But, if you assume that, then you can't accuse anyone of covering something up, right?

 

[michaeledward]

Or, of course, it could be equally true that the tapes showed no wrongdoing, but would have revealed the identities of the people who were turned during the interrogation, the identities of the interrogators, and the identities of operatives, and were destroyed to protect all these identities.

But, if you assume that, then you can't accuse anyone of covering something up, right?

Why make a videotape, at all, if there is concern about identities being revealed? You are, of course, correct, that we do not know what was on the destroyed tapes.

That the tapes existed when the 911 commission requested them, that the CIA denied their existance, and then the CIA destroyed the tapes begs inquiry, I believe. And if the content proved no wrong-doing, that too, I believe is very important.

But, what is most interesting to me ... in regards of this thread ... is WHY NOW?

I am stating that I believe General Hayden is following orders. By releasing this information now, he is deflecting attention away from the National Intelligence Estimate and the President's language related to Iran.

I recommend looking to Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from last evening.

Really, forget the fact that "I" am making the accusation. Forget the fact that it is crazy old socialist michaeledward .... look at the facts, look at the language the President has used, look at the question.

I think they're relevant questions. No matter who makes them.

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite right, sir.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Without a time qualifier, this statement is not very helpful.

With regards to the 'intelligence failures' referenced in the news conferences, we need to look at the intelligence being quoted by the Bush Adminstration in 2002.

Iraq did not have any Weapons of Mass Destruction from 1996 (or so) forward. That Hussein used Chemical Weapons in 1988, is hardly relevant to this discussion.

That's true... sorry for dragging the conversation off slightly...