4 ms·

How can you prove that clandestine operations do or do not help? If it goes well, no one will ever know. If it fails, it's either covered up or is a huge scanda

How can you prove that clandestine operations do or do not help? If it goes well, no one will ever know. If it fails, it's either covered up or is a huge scandal. It seems contrary to the entire idea of cover intelligence to claim success or failure.

ameister14 7y ago
When the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says they aren't really effective
dfxm12 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Recent_trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States... This article links to a report that gives a number for terror incidents and how many were foiled. You can see a map here: https://www.typeinvestigations.org/domesticterror/ https://www.typeinvestigations.org/domesticterror/ which talks about the incident, and in the case of foiled incidents, links to something like court proceedings. This doesn't necessarily show clandestine operations led to foiling them vs regular police work, though...
- ethanbond 7y ago
  > Most of the Islamist incidents are thwarted plots, indicating a significant investment of law enforcement resources. Most of the others are successful acts in which attackers damaged property or inflicted human casualties. Seems to say that surveillance does work, but that we're perhaps surveilling the wrong people/in the wrong proportions. It could be consequence of homegrown terrorism being, errr, homegrown, which therefore entails the much more legally tricky surveillance of American citizens. Islamic terrorism tends to be funded/trained/orchestrated abroad, where collaborators don't enjoy the same freedoms from surveillance.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  Those are publicly known cases and just normal counter terrorism investigations. This isn't applicable to clandestine US surveillance as seen in the FISA courts. FISA courts very much fall into "US surveillance" law but are kept secret.

ameister14 7y ago

When the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says they aren't really effective

dfxm12 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Recent_trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States... This article links to a report that gives a number for terror incidents and how many were foiled. You can see a map here: https://www.typeinvestigations.org/domesticterror/ https://www.typeinvestigations.org/domesticterror/ which talks about the incident, and in the case of foiled incidents, links to something like court proceedings. This doesn't necessarily show clandestine operations led to foiling them vs regular police work, though...

ethanbond 7y ago
> Most of the Islamist incidents are thwarted plots, indicating a significant investment of law enforcement resources. Most of the others are successful acts in which attackers damaged property or inflicted human casualties. Seems to say that surveillance does work, but that we're perhaps surveilling the wrong people/in the wrong proportions. It could be consequence of homegrown terrorism being, errr, homegrown, which therefore entails the much more legally tricky surveillance of American citizens. Islamic terrorism tends to be funded/trained/orchestrated abroad, where collaborators don't enjoy the same freedoms from surveillance.
jorblumesea 7y ago
Those are publicly known cases and just normal counter terrorism investigations. This isn't applicable to clandestine US surveillance as seen in the FISA courts. FISA courts very much fall into "US surveillance" law but are kept secret.