4 ms·

Oh lord, this is so shocking! /s Why is state intelligence even a thing? The military is capable of gathering all of the defensive intelligence that we need to

Oh lord, this is so shocking! /s Why is state intelligence even a thing? The military is capable of gathering all of the defensive intelligence that we need to protect ourselves. These state cowboys are out there making deals and cracking my WiFi to see what porn I'm watching in the name of counter-terror. Nonviolent threats do not necessitate or validate state intelligence imo.

lightbyte 9y ago
>Why is state intelligence even a thing? The military is capable of gathering all of the defensive intelligence that we need to protect ourselves. What are you saying? The military IS the state.
- killin_dan 9y ago
  Not even close to the actual intelligence structure. The nsa doesn't have to answer to dod at ALL. Hurr durr the military is the state, you have no clue what you're talking about. I served for 6 years doing naval intelligence, sigint, and we never once heard from nsa, cia, fbi, etc. All our orders came from one of two generals in charge of our task force. Nuclear subs night have to work with intel agencies for technical purposes, but I never served on one.
  - narrowrail 9y ago
    I don't have the experience you do, but all of the big violent acts we have had over the last 20 years that I remember were perpetrated by US citizens (except 9/11). I agree that we should not shape our laws based on edge-case criteria (e.g comic book villains), but their has to be some cross-state law enforcement.
    - killin_dan 9y ago
      Then it should be a job for public servants and law enforcement, not a bunch of cowboys with unlimited xkeyscore power with nobody to answer to.
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Because the military isn't supposed to act domestically under normal circumstances, to prevent other kinds of abuses. So we have a federal police organization separate from the military, theoretically trained to obey the rules of domestic operations (eg, constitutional protections). And it is that police organization which handles intelligence about, eg, terrorism and foreign spies that originates inside of the country. There are some caveats about cooperation between different agencies, but I'm not going to try and defend those as they currently exist -- the domestic police shouldn't have access to some of our spy apparatus that doesn't obey domestic laws. However, there is a legitimate reason to have a domestic police force separate from the military, and a legitimate need for them to have some intelligence operations, to eg crack terrorist rings and track spies.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  "So we have a federal police organization separate from the military, theoretically trained to obey the rules of domestic operations " Interesting enough, its power came from public relations, military and intelligence-style operations against its opponents under J Edgar Hoover. The story you told came as propaganda supporting that. I agree with separating military and law enforcement plus different procedures. It's just that the FBI was more like a foreign opponent shoring up power for itself, esp its leader, than a traditional LEO w/ federal power given for legitimate reasons. Then, it kept and expanded on that power despite how it achieved it in the first place.
MrZongle2 9y ago
"The military is capable of gathering all of the defensive intelligence that we need to protect ourselves." In theory, yes. In practice, no. Military intelligence focuses on identifying and tracking threats to military forces. During the Cold War, for instance, this meant having a decent understanding of Soviet doctrine, equipment, and tactics. Civilian intelligence agencies focused on government operations, infrastructure, and the like. Overlap existed (and still exists), but their focus was different. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you wanted to close civilian-run intelligence agencies and turn it all over to the military. How do you get enough green-suiters to fill all those chairs previously filled by civilians and, more importantly, keep those chairs filled by qualified individuals? Enlistments end, and soldiers/airmen/sailors are generally given other duty assignments on a routine basis. That's institutional knowledge that walks right out the door, that doesn't necessarily happen if you've got civilian employees. What you may be saving budget-wise (military personnel being cheaper than civilian), you're spending on training and retention. Why would an E-6 with plenty of analysis and personnel management experience stick around when he or she could make a lot more in the private sector? And when all is said and done, does this really prevent the kind of abuses we're already seeing with civilian-run agencies?
- killin_dan 9y ago
  I was in military intelligence. I am qualified to make the evaluation I made. Violent citizens can be dealt with through police channels and public servants, not lawless shadows in the dark in a giant data center somewhere. How many civilian whistleblowers have there been compared to how many enlisted whistleblowers there have been? I myself once spoke up about an unscrupulous sailor, but I went to an E-8 and asked him for his advice (hey, a friend of a friend is doing something wrong, blah blah) and he pointed me in the right direction to handle it without fucking this guy over, and the behavior was corrected and we all went happily about our missions, no harm, no foul. It's easy to do. Civilians don't have as much of a moral obligation to the rest of the country, they aren't ready to die to serve it. Your argument is basically, "well, private sector is going to do this shit anyways" but that's ridiculous to say that we should continue to be complicit in letting the NSA exist just because if we don't let them do it, someone else will. Citizen's hands are dirty for being complicit, and more people need to realize that a unified effort of enough magnitude could make HUGE cuts to state intel sector a reality, and we could pump that money into better police training, better resources for investigators and people who are invested in their communities rather than some asshole with an xkeyscore login and a name on a screen. I'm not saying state intel agencies don't contribute to ethical sources like infrastructure and civ eng stuff, of course they do, but it doesn't excuse all the other terrible things they do, and it'd be possible to redirect that talent and those resources into those areas through other agencies. DOT could offer special hire credits for intel workers with infra design experience, for example. That could be made possible by NOT running $10-digit datacenters full of civilian facebook messages with tax payer money.
AlexCoventry 9y ago
If you're relying on your Wifi encryption to protect your privacy, there are easier ways to spy on you.

lightbyte 9y ago

>Why is state intelligence even a thing? The military is capable of gathering all of the defensive intelligence that we need to protect ourselves. What are you saying? The military IS the state.

killin_dan 9y ago
Not even close to the actual intelligence structure. The nsa doesn't have to answer to dod at ALL. Hurr durr the military is the state, you have no clue what you're talking about. I served for 6 years doing naval intelligence, sigint, and we never once heard from nsa, cia, fbi, etc. All our orders came from one of two generals in charge of our task force. Nuclear subs night have to work with intel agencies for technical purposes, but I never served on one.
- narrowrail 9y ago
  I don't have the experience you do, but all of the big violent acts we have had over the last 20 years that I remember were perpetrated by US citizens (except 9/11). I agree that we should not shape our laws based on edge-case criteria (e.g comic book villains), but their has to be some cross-state law enforcement.
  - killin_dan 9y ago
    Then it should be a job for public servants and law enforcement, not a bunch of cowboys with unlimited xkeyscore power with nobody to answer to.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

Because the military isn't supposed to act domestically under normal circumstances, to prevent other kinds of abuses. So we have a federal police organization separate from the military, theoretically trained to obey the rules of domestic operations (eg, constitutional protections). And it is that police organization which handles intelligence about, eg, terrorism and foreign spies that originates inside of the country. There are some caveats about cooperation between different agencies, but I'm not going to try and defend those as they currently exist -- the domestic police shouldn't have access to some of our spy apparatus that doesn't obey domestic laws. However, there is a legitimate reason to have a domestic police force separate from the military, and a legitimate need for them to have some intelligence operations, to eg crack terrorist rings and track spies.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
"So we have a federal police organization separate from the military, theoretically trained to obey the rules of domestic operations " Interesting enough, its power came from public relations, military and intelligence-style operations against its opponents under J Edgar Hoover. The story you told came as propaganda supporting that. I agree with separating military and law enforcement plus different procedures. It's just that the FBI was more like a foreign opponent shoring up power for itself, esp its leader, than a traditional LEO w/ federal power given for legitimate reasons. Then, it kept and expanded on that power despite how it achieved it in the first place.

MrZongle2 9y ago

"The military is capable of gathering all of the defensive intelligence that we need to protect ourselves." In theory, yes. In practice, no. Military intelligence focuses on identifying and tracking threats to military forces. During the Cold War, for instance, this meant having a decent understanding of Soviet doctrine, equipment, and tactics. Civilian intelligence agencies focused on government operations, infrastructure, and the like. Overlap existed (and still exists), but their focus was different. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you wanted to close civilian-run intelligence agencies and turn it all over to the military. How do you get enough green-suiters to fill all those chairs previously filled by civilians and, more importantly, keep those chairs filled by qualified individuals? Enlistments end, and soldiers/airmen/sailors are generally given other duty assignments on a routine basis. That's institutional knowledge that walks right out the door, that doesn't necessarily happen if you've got civilian employees. What you may be saving budget-wise (military personnel being cheaper than civilian), you're spending on training and retention. Why would an E-6 with plenty of analysis and personnel management experience stick around when he or she could make a lot more in the private sector? And when all is said and done, does this really prevent the kind of abuses we're already seeing with civilian-run agencies?

killin_dan 9y ago
I was in military intelligence. I am qualified to make the evaluation I made. Violent citizens can be dealt with through police channels and public servants, not lawless shadows in the dark in a giant data center somewhere. How many civilian whistleblowers have there been compared to how many enlisted whistleblowers there have been? I myself once spoke up about an unscrupulous sailor, but I went to an E-8 and asked him for his advice (hey, a friend of a friend is doing something wrong, blah blah) and he pointed me in the right direction to handle it without fucking this guy over, and the behavior was corrected and we all went happily about our missions, no harm, no foul. It's easy to do. Civilians don't have as much of a moral obligation to the rest of the country, they aren't ready to die to serve it. Your argument is basically, "well, private sector is going to do this shit anyways" but that's ridiculous to say that we should continue to be complicit in letting the NSA exist just because if we don't let them do it, someone else will. Citizen's hands are dirty for being complicit, and more people need to realize that a unified effort of enough magnitude could make HUGE cuts to state intel sector a reality, and we could pump that money into better police training, better resources for investigators and people who are invested in their communities rather than some asshole with an xkeyscore login and a name on a screen. I'm not saying state intel agencies don't contribute to ethical sources like infrastructure and civ eng stuff, of course they do, but it doesn't excuse all the other terrible things they do, and it'd be possible to redirect that talent and those resources into those areas through other agencies. DOT could offer special hire credits for intel workers with infra design experience, for example. That could be made possible by NOT running $10-digit datacenters full of civilian facebook messages with tax payer money.

AlexCoventry 9y ago

If you're relying on your Wifi encryption to protect your privacy, there are easier ways to spy on you.