6 ms·

Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I feel like this piece is written in such a sensationalistic fashion that I can’t understand what the real story is..? All t

Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I feel like this piece is written in such a sensationalistic fashion that I can’t understand what the real story is..? All the various branches of US intelligence and military have clandestine operations.. is that supposed to be shocking?

madengr 5y ago
See the first comment below the article.
graderjs 5y ago
The size of it, how it's off the books and outside of oversight.
whoknew1122 5y ago
For me, it's not the fact it exists that is shocking. It's the fact that it exists outside of any oversight and apparently without any consideration of US or foreign law. I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now. But the more the US flaunts internal laws and norms on war, the more likely aggressors are going to put them aside and we're back to the savagery of World War I -- except now we have deadlier conventional and biological/chemical weapons.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Aggressors like what? The US has military superiority and distance to the other super powers, and it would not be in any of their interests to start a war - let alone one on moral grounds, which are flexible at best for all superpowers.
  - Joker_vD 5y ago
    Like Great Britain, I imagine? Sending your special forces to another country with the specific task of killing their head of state is an act of aggression... but then again, if you're a permanent member of the UNSC, it doesn't matter much.
  - RobRivera 5y ago
    fun fact, ww1 was started at a time of high economic interdependence among world powers
- leroy_masochist 5y ago
  These programs are directed by the Executive Branch with Legislative Branch oversight and potential Judicial Branch review. Not sure what any of these programs have to do with GC violations or laws/norms of war? Literally every major industrialized country has clandestine programs and this business predates the GCs by millennia ("the world's second-oldest profession, distinguished from the oldest one by its relative lack of ethics or morals").
  - graderjs 5y ago
    That's not really true. There's lots of SAPs that have no Leg oversight, and Exec doesn't know about them. DoE has lots of black budget programs that don't have the same scrutiny as DoD ones. And even in DoD there's so many SAPs, it's not possible that Exec and Leg have been briefed in to all of them, nor asked to be. So while theoretically, Exec and Leg should be able to look at any SAP, how are they going to know about them, if someone in the program uses their discretion to decide to not tell them it exists? From the point of view of "democracy" this is definitely a bug. But from the point of view of SAPs and commercial interests involved in them, this is mostly a feature (except when things are so secret and locked down it's hard to bring in talent to work on them). Tho, in the case of this so-called "secret army" they don't seem to be suffering any talent shortage :p;) xx
    - leroy_masochist 5y ago
      Respectfully, you seem to be confusing the fact that there are government agencies which report to the EB and are overseen by the LB, and these agencies have highly sensitive SAPs about which very few people know specifics (true) with the notion that the EB has no idea in general about what goes on through these SAPs and there is no accountability within these agencies for methods used by these SAPs and/or the outcomes they achieve (untrue).
      - graderjs 5y ago
        I probably am. I'm not an expert in this. Sorry, if you know more about it than I do I defer to you. But what I understand is, say I had a SAP that was running psychological experimentation on everyday Americans without their knowledge or consent, it sounds as if you're saying that it's guaranteed the EB would know "in general terms" this was going on. I think that's false. I definitely think it's possible that there are blacker than black SAPs that escape any EB/LB oversight whatsoever. But, please, enlighten me differently if that's not true :) ;p xx
- austhrow743 5y ago
  >I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?
  - md_ 5y ago
    Not sure what OP meant, but from what I understand (which is very little) the Geneva Conventions forbid "perfidy", which includes "feigning civilian, non-combatant status". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy. I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was about, however.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mattkrause 5y ago
      The next part of Article 37, also quoted in the article, contrasts (which is forbidden) perfidy with permissible ruses of war. It’s a very blurry line, but actual combat seems to be one major distinction. Disguising a battleship as an enemy or merchant vessel seems to be okay...as long as the disguise is dropped before engaging. However, marking it as a hospital ship seems right out regardless of the situation because the hospital emblem is specially protected because those ships are never supposed to be attacked. This database has many countries’ interpretation of the differences: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule57 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
      - md_ 5y ago
        Thanks, super interesting.
3327 5y ago
Its business insider. They are a glorified clickbait outlet that so happens to have a good name. To name a few other BS outlets that once had a good reputation: Forbes Cnn Inc. venturebeat Mashable The list goes on...
- thegreatpeter 5y ago
  You forgot fox news
- charlesmunger7 5y ago
  I was recently wondering what I'd need to do to browse HN minus the news sites
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/classic https://news.ycombinator.com/classic Though I can't recall what the exact changes are, this post doesn't show up at least.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  It's Newsweek, not that I really consider their reputation much better.
tgflynn 5y ago
What I found most surprising was the number of people involved. 60000 people involved in clandestine special ops ? The entire FBI only employs 35000.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  Define "involved" though. Military operations have extremely long logistics tails compared to civilian law enforcement, thus inflating the personnel on the books.
  - MichaelMcG 5y ago
    To add to this, the article mentions that half of the alleged 60k are SOF (~30k). This includes units like the 75th Ranger Regiment, most likely the largest SOF organization. According to a quick glance at their Wiki task org, 14 of the 27 COs exist in either a support, command, or training capacity. This roughly breaks down to 50% of the entire Regiment, and the 75th should (in theory) have the highest ratio of trigger pullers to support personnel within the SOF world. Additionally, most of these SOF organizations have other (more conventional) mission sets they would be supporting at the same time. It can also be assumed that less than half of an organization's personnel are deployed at any given time, while the remaining personnel remain stateside retraining and preparing for their rotation--leaving a relatively small percentage of the alleged 30k SOF personnel actively participating in clandestine operations.
    - ARandomerDude 5y ago
      Very informed comment – wish I could upvote twice. Well done!
DennisP 5y ago
I'm not so concerned about them doing it on foreign soil, but I do find it kinda disturbing that they're doing it domestically.
sam_4675 5y ago
I agree. Over hyped click bait. The "secret forces" they identify are special forces (of course, what would you expect?), civilian consultants (same) and those who "search for high-value targets and collect what is called "publicly accessible information"—or even engage in campaigns to influence and manipulate social media"( i.e., military staff surfing the public web as anonymously as possible). Article admits that only the real spies use fake IDs and then only during a mission: "Most signature reduction soldiers travel under real names, exchanging operational identities only once on the ground where they operate,". Also some of this sounds like disinformation, e.g., re ability to manipulate enemies databases to get through security. Sounds like noise to freak opponents out.
- graderjs 5y ago
  It might not be notable if you're familiar with the scale of it and the secrecy through your own experience, but that's not really the main audience of Newsweek. I think a majority of regular people this would be newsworthy and interesting. I agree some of it could be disinfo. I wonder how representative the 60k estimate is of the true size of people whose main full-time work is mostly in SAPs / black budget programs, not just these seemingly "operationally focused" ones.

madengr 5y ago

See the first comment below the article.

graderjs 5y ago

The size of it, how it's off the books and outside of oversight.

whoknew1122 5y ago

For me, it's not the fact it exists that is shocking. It's the fact that it exists outside of any oversight and apparently without any consideration of US or foreign law. I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now. But the more the US flaunts internal laws and norms on war, the more likely aggressors are going to put them aside and we're back to the savagery of World War I -- except now we have deadlier conventional and biological/chemical weapons.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Aggressors like what? The US has military superiority and distance to the other super powers, and it would not be in any of their interests to start a war - let alone one on moral grounds, which are flexible at best for all superpowers.
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  Like Great Britain, I imagine? Sending your special forces to another country with the specific task of killing their head of state is an act of aggression... but then again, if you're a permanent member of the UNSC, it doesn't matter much.
- RobRivera 5y ago
  fun fact, ww1 was started at a time of high economic interdependence among world powers
leroy_masochist 5y ago
These programs are directed by the Executive Branch with Legislative Branch oversight and potential Judicial Branch review. Not sure what any of these programs have to do with GC violations or laws/norms of war? Literally every major industrialized country has clandestine programs and this business predates the GCs by millennia ("the world's second-oldest profession, distinguished from the oldest one by its relative lack of ethics or morals").
- graderjs 5y ago
  That's not really true. There's lots of SAPs that have no Leg oversight, and Exec doesn't know about them. DoE has lots of black budget programs that don't have the same scrutiny as DoD ones. And even in DoD there's so many SAPs, it's not possible that Exec and Leg have been briefed in to all of them, nor asked to be. So while theoretically, Exec and Leg should be able to look at any SAP, how are they going to know about them, if someone in the program uses their discretion to decide to not tell them it exists? From the point of view of "democracy" this is definitely a bug. But from the point of view of SAPs and commercial interests involved in them, this is mostly a feature (except when things are so secret and locked down it's hard to bring in talent to work on them). Tho, in the case of this so-called "secret army" they don't seem to be suffering any talent shortage :p;) xx
  - leroy_masochist 5y ago
    Respectfully, you seem to be confusing the fact that there are government agencies which report to the EB and are overseen by the LB, and these agencies have highly sensitive SAPs about which very few people know specifics (true) with the notion that the EB has no idea in general about what goes on through these SAPs and there is no accountability within these agencies for methods used by these SAPs and/or the outcomes they achieve (untrue).
    - graderjs 5y ago
      I probably am. I'm not an expert in this. Sorry, if you know more about it than I do I defer to you. But what I understand is, say I had a SAP that was running psychological experimentation on everyday Americans without their knowledge or consent, it sounds as if you're saying that it's guaranteed the EB would know "in general terms" this was going on. I think that's false. I definitely think it's possible that there are blacker than black SAPs that escape any EB/LB oversight whatsoever. But, please, enlighten me differently if that's not true :) ;p xx
austhrow743 5y ago
>I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?
- md_ 5y ago
  Not sure what OP meant, but from what I understand (which is very little) the Geneva Conventions forbid "perfidy", which includes "feigning civilian, non-combatant status". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy. I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was about, however.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattkrause 5y ago
    The next part of Article 37, also quoted in the article, contrasts (which is forbidden) perfidy with permissible ruses of war. It’s a very blurry line, but actual combat seems to be one major distinction. Disguising a battleship as an enemy or merchant vessel seems to be okay...as long as the disguise is dropped before engaging. However, marking it as a hospital ship seems right out regardless of the situation because the hospital emblem is specially protected because those ships are never supposed to be attacked. This database has many countries’ interpretation of the differences: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule57 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
    - md_ 5y ago
      Thanks, super interesting.

3327 5y ago

Its business insider. They are a glorified clickbait outlet that so happens to have a good name. To name a few other BS outlets that once had a good reputation: Forbes Cnn Inc. venturebeat Mashable The list goes on...

thegreatpeter 5y ago
You forgot fox news
charlesmunger7 5y ago
I was recently wondering what I'd need to do to browse HN minus the news sites
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/classic https://news.ycombinator.com/classic Though I can't recall what the exact changes are, this post doesn't show up at least.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
It's Newsweek, not that I really consider their reputation much better.

tgflynn 5y ago

What I found most surprising was the number of people involved. 60000 people involved in clandestine special ops ? The entire FBI only employs 35000.

ARandomerDude 5y ago
Define "involved" though. Military operations have extremely long logistics tails compared to civilian law enforcement, thus inflating the personnel on the books.
- MichaelMcG 5y ago
  To add to this, the article mentions that half of the alleged 60k are SOF (~30k). This includes units like the 75th Ranger Regiment, most likely the largest SOF organization. According to a quick glance at their Wiki task org, 14 of the 27 COs exist in either a support, command, or training capacity. This roughly breaks down to 50% of the entire Regiment, and the 75th should (in theory) have the highest ratio of trigger pullers to support personnel within the SOF world. Additionally, most of these SOF organizations have other (more conventional) mission sets they would be supporting at the same time. It can also be assumed that less than half of an organization's personnel are deployed at any given time, while the remaining personnel remain stateside retraining and preparing for their rotation--leaving a relatively small percentage of the alleged 30k SOF personnel actively participating in clandestine operations.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    Very informed comment – wish I could upvote twice. Well done!

DennisP 5y ago

I'm not so concerned about them doing it on foreign soil, but I do find it kinda disturbing that they're doing it domestically.

sam_4675 5y ago

I agree. Over hyped click bait. The "secret forces" they identify are special forces (of course, what would you expect?), civilian consultants (same) and those who "search for high-value targets and collect what is called "publicly accessible information"—or even engage in campaigns to influence and manipulate social media"( i.e., military staff surfing the public web as anonymously as possible). Article admits that only the real spies use fake IDs and then only during a mission: "Most signature reduction soldiers travel under real names, exchanging operational identities only once on the ground where they operate,". Also some of this sounds like disinformation, e.g., re ability to manipulate enemies databases to get through security. Sounds like noise to freak opponents out.

graderjs 5y ago
It might not be notable if you're familiar with the scale of it and the secrecy through your own experience, but that's not really the main audience of Newsweek. I think a majority of regular people this would be newsworthy and interesting. I agree some of it could be disinfo. I wonder how representative the 60k estimate is of the true size of people whose main full-time work is mostly in SAPs / black budget programs, not just these seemingly "operationally focused" ones.