Is US Intelligence working?

[mindlight]

The sitting President at the time not listening to warnings, one of which involved planes being flown into buildings, isn't a failure of US Intelligence.

Repeated warnings came from foreign intelligence agencies including the British. But these were all ignored. The fact is that the mechanisms by which intelligence and warnings are processed dramatically failed in this case. The 911 commission says this was a shock even if the climate was already indicative of terrorist intentions.

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

If I recall, reports from US Intelligence saying that the WMDs weren't there were scraped by higher ups who were political.

It is possible that the highest government officials heard what they wanted to hear in this case.

US Intelligence were not the security administrators that ran the DNC servers.

Can we at least blame them for their actual failures?

What kind of success is it to identify the Russians as cyber attackers after the event. That is just like saying we know that Muslim extremists did 911. Far better to have prevented such attacks or have mechanisms in place which make it distinctly unfavourable for a foreign power to make such cyberattacks (e.g. tit for tat)

 

[LoAmmi]

What kind of success is it to identify the Russians as cyber attackers after the event. That is just like saying we know that Muslim extremists did 911. Far better to have prevented such attacks or have mechanisms in place which make it distinctly unfavourable for a foreign power to make such cyberattacks (e.g. tit for tat)

Were the US intelligence agencies in charge of network security for the DNC?

 

[mindlight]

After 9/11, billions of dollars were poured into the Intel community. I think there are opportunities to streamline the structure and eliminate overlap. It must be done in an informed, apolitical and logical manner.

1) failure to work in an integrated manner - a lot of reforms have occurred since 9-11. 2) An example of politicized intelligence --information was shaped to fit the executive's branch's policy of regime change.

Is there a specific Intelligence failure? Or is your issue with the policies of the executive branch (decision makers)?

Actually there are 2 strands here to the failures in policy in Syria and Iraq under Obama. There are major foul ups by the decisions makers like:
1) Premature withdrawal from Iraq which caused the rise of IS in the first place.
2) The failed attempt to counter the Iran-Mediterranean Shia corridor AND defeat IS - by opposing both Assad and ISIS. This just led to a perpetuation of the civil war and massive regional instability, radicalisation, death and homelessness

But there are also failures in the intelligence community e.g. Identifying our friends as moderate Muslims (in an utterly radicalised context) led to some major issues with American weopans finding their ways into the hands of terrorists. Also there is a perception of a general religious illiteracy in the intelligence community blinding them to motivations and meanings that are redundant or considered irrelevant in the secular/liberal metanarrative that underpins American state institutions. It is that narrative that is increasingly redundant in a world that is growing more not less religious and where some of the primary threats to American security are essentially Islamist.

US Intelligence cannot possibly protect all computers connected to the Internet...nor is that their mission.

No but you guys spend a vast amount of money on cyberwarfare groups and the NSAs info gathering. If not forewarned you could have least done a similar thing to those who perpetrated the actions after the event to make it clear what the consequences were.

These guys?
Political correctness does not impact intelligence gathering capabilities.

See point one.

Of course it does. When the political appointee in charge of an organisation is there because he gay rather than competent, or black rather than the best choice, or a woman rather than the person with the best experience then you damage the effectiveness of your organisations. When profiling has to navigate its way through the language of politically correct terms and reports are submitted to politically correct thought police rather than understood on their own merits then major errors of judgment will occur. It is the underpinning secular/liberal narrative that needs to be challenged if we are to understand the threats and challenges of the modern world.

 

[mindlight]

Cutting the intelligence community could have very grave consequences for our safetly.

1. The CIA warned about 9/11. It was ignored.

Foreign intelligence agencies definitely gave warnings. The 911 commission flatly denies warnings were actually given to the decision makers that would have made any difference.

4. Again, intel means nothing if you don't do something with it. The intel community is not going to sit with every congressman and make sure they don't set their password as P@ssw0rd. Cutting intel and cyber security will only make this problem worse.

They can provide an effectively guarded framework within which decision makers can operate. In the case of the DNC as with Clinton the desire to operate outside such frameworks to protect private interests may often be the real issue.

 

[mindlight]

There should always be some tension among the Intel agencies, DoD and the civilian CIC. A good leader must balance the agendas. Mr. Trump begins every dialogue by publicly disparaging the other party. He doubles down by then asserting he is "smarter" than the other party and/or has secret knowledge or plans that will "quickly" fix the complex problem. Consequently, his remarks so far are without cred of any sort. It's New York real estate politics.

There has to be some accountability given the size of the budget, intrusiveness of activities and security implications of ineffective agencies. Trump as the president elect is the man to hold them to account. He does have a ruder and more aggressive style than previous presidents. He also seems determined to get results. It is an interesting tension and could potentially lead to badly needed reforms. I would not write Trump off before he even begins this task - indeed I hope he succeeds.

 

[mindlight]

I was listening in as well---

Senior Intelligence Officials Resolute Russian | Video | C-SPAN.org

The Intel Leaders understand they are not the decision makers. However, they do expect to be respected and consulted. As Clapper noted there is a difference between " skepticism and disparagement."

There is always a history to the development of trust. Maybe the real question is why presidents often ignore the advice of intelligence agencies. Is this cause they have been used to these guys pulling fast ones on them or because they are blinded by their own political agendas and do not hear the truth when it is presented to them?

 

[mindlight]

Were the US intelligence agencies in charge of network security for the DNC?

Obamas actions imply that the hacking of the DNC was a politically significant act and he has presumably discerned this using information provided to him by the intelligence agencies after the event. Are you saying that such attacks on the US democratic process are not a serious consideration for the elected representatives of the American people? The only people fully equipped to deal with state sponsored cyberattacks are state sponsored cyber units. So if they have no responsibility here then there what are they for? If they are not responsible then who is?

 

[LoAmmi]

Obamas actions imply that the hacking of the DNC was a politically significant act and he has presumably discerned this using information provided to him by the intelligence agencies after the event. Are you saying that such attacks on the US democratic process are not a serious consideration for the elected representatives of the American people? The only people fully equipped to deal with state sponsored cyberattacks are state sponsored cyber units. So if they have no responsibility here then there what are they for? If they are not responsible then who is?

I'm talking about preventing the hack to start with. The intelligence agencies, as far as I'm aware, do not take security control over the RNC or DNC. They would be called in after a hack to investigate. It looks like the DNC's security was poor.

 

[HannahT]

Were the US intelligence agencies in charge of network security for the DNC?

From what I remember early on - not recently - the US Intelligence told the DNC to beef up their security. Since they have no power to enforce that? Part of the blame lies with the DNC.

The problem is when the partisan nature of the Democrat - Republican antagonism intrudes on that oversight to the point of damaging the effectiveness of the intelligence community.

Part of the problem seems to be political. They ignore the warnings, and then use the intelligence agencies as either scapegoats - or ask them to apply motive so it looks better politically. If don't ignore the warnings? Give kudos to them because it looks good to do so.

I look back at Benghazi, and I can't believe they didn't have all kinds of red flags waving in the wind. I mean other countries and organizations already pulled out. They saw the writing on the wall. Did we not have the very same - or similar intelligence?

When we speak of the hotbed surrounding Syria and ISIS. Politicians want to dance around words so they don't offend, and intelligence either says to back a certain band or group...or they aren't sure which one to back because the choices aren't good. They claim we can't vet properly the humans that politicians want to bring here, and the political elites claim racism - not the broken vetting system - as to why people are rather scared to allow this to happen...because they want to do it anyway. It seems to me that they want the intelligence people to catch ISIS once they get here, instead looking for safer alternatives. Then when something happens? Blame the intelligence community for not doing their jobs.

They don't have an easy job at all. They have to deal with the evil in this world, and then deal with the politics of those in charge. Skepticism is due to the nature of that dynamic. Our political system made that bed for us.

 

[LoAmmi]

From what I remember early on - not recently - the US Intelligence told the DNC to beef up their security. Since they have no power to enforce that? Part of the blame lies with the DNC.

Part? No, I'd say pretty much all the fault for lax security would be on the DNC.

 

[HannahT]

Part? No, I'd say pretty much all the fault for lax security would be on the DNC.

Agreed. I was speaking of the guilt of the party that hacked in the equation.

 

[LoAmmi]

Agreed. I was speaking of the guilt of the party that hacked in the equation.

Ah, well yes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

1) the failure to predict 911

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.

2) false predictions about WMDs

"In December, the RAND Corporation issued a report that stated the CIA assessment "contained several qualifiers that were dropped ... As the draft NIE went up the intelligence chain of command, the conclusions were treated increasingly definitively.""

Certainly it amounted to bad intelligence, but in the wake of that, processes were changed to avoid this kind of mistake. What can't be avoided, however, is the use of such intelligence by an Administration. Certainly the Bush Administration was not as cautious about the results as the original reports from the intelligence community.

(Besides, if you ask around here -- a lot of people will swear up and down that Saddam did have WMD.)

3) a failed Middle Eastern policy that has led to a genocide of the Christian church , a magnification of civil strife combined with general religious illiteracy

The intelligence community does not set policy.

4) the failure to prevent the hacking of the Democrats whoever carried it out

The intelligence community is not the IT department for the country. Nor is it the cyber crime division of the police.

 

[mindlight]

Part? No, I'd say pretty much all the fault for lax security would be on the DNC.

Given the sensitivity and political significance of such conferences I am slightly confused why the US Government does not offer a firewalled and neutral framework for these. In the case of the DNC they had no reason to fear political bias in a state apparatus ruled by a Democratic president.

 

[LoAmmi]

Given the sensitivity and political significance of such conferences I am slightly confused why the US Government does not offer a firewalled and neutral framework for these. In the case of the DNC they had no reason to fear political bias in a state apparatus ruled by a Democratic president.

Yeah, and we should also have good campaign finance reform, but we're in a situation now where that doesn't exist as far as I'm aware.

 

[HannahT]

I was listening in as well---

Senior Intelligence Officials Resolute Russian | Video | C-SPAN.org

The Intel Leaders understand they are not the decision makers. However, they do expect to be respected and consulted. As Clapper noted there is a difference between " skepticism and disparagement."

No doubt he doesn't like being brought to Congress, and encouraged to deflect either. He did so with the snowden hearings.

In the current political environment I see no problem with questioning their speculation as to the motives of the hackers. I mean it's a little late in the game to want their input now when it's been happening from different hacking parties the entire times the current administration has been in place. No doubt prior ones as well.

I see as typical. When it affects the powers that be? Then all heck breaks loose. When it only affects the little people - like when the federal employees information was stolen...a wag of the finger will do. That type of dynamic doesn't just happen within the political realm. It happens quite often when you have a large power base compared to the common man - corporate america does the same thing.

 

[HannahT]

Ah, well yes.

Sorry. I should have been more clear. No doubt lack of coffee! lol - that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!

 

[HannahT]

Given the sensitivity and political significance of such conferences I am slightly confused why the US Government does not offer a firewalled and neutral framework for these. In the case of the DNC they had no reason to fear political bias in a state apparatus ruled by a Democratic president.

You can have all the apparatus in the world in place, but it still only takes one person not following common sense security protocol...and it leaves them vulnerable. It's been reported on more than one news agency that Podesta for example used 'password' for his password. He used gmail - not the organization's email system - and even GOOGLE tells you not to use that for your password when you sign up for the service.

The phishing email he received? It's recommended that you do NOT click on links in emails to reset your password for any site when you get a warning of a possible breach. You go to the site to sign in - as you normally do - and go through the process manually to change it. Yet, their own IT department told him to go for it? They didn't recognize the easiest way to get into an account? That isn't rocket science here. That's just basic security.

The fact they want to blame russia for their lack of common sense, and competency for basic security measures? Their fans will agree, but most anyone that signed up for gmail or received a phishing email that companies write TONS of articles covering how to handle them? They want people to play stupid for their benefit. To me that's pretty low.

I don't think foreign agencies should be attempting to hack any system of ours, but it's been known for years now that they constantly try. It's common knowledge that we do the same back. It would be nice if accountability to each hack happened, and not just one that happened due to stupidity.

Accountability for people that refuse to follow basic security protocol needs to come into the equation here, and they pretend it's not a factor. I guess they are all that, and they (russia) shouldn't have even DARED to harm them. That arrogance cost them face. The emails didn't show anything that people didn't already speculate on, and so I can't see it as any factor in the election. It was just confirmation.

 

[cow451]

So, maybe US intelligence isn't working.

9/11 was fifteen years ago. Using that to judge what is happening today is silly.

 

[cow451]

Prayer.

(We're working on draining the swamp).

Pouring bacon fat in the swamp is unlikely to help, that appears to be the Trump approach.