6
   

What is gained by the State Department Closing?

 
 
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 05:26 pm
So there is "chatter", the spooks think that maybe bad guys will strike some where sometime, so the State Department closes as "an abundance of caution". But if there is a plan ready to go wont the bad guys just sit and wait for the operations to open? Two days, two weeks, two months.....it will make no difference to them.

What am I missing? is this not security theater?
 
Foofie
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 07:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

So there is "chatter", the spooks think that maybe bad guys will strike some where sometime, so the State Department closes as "an abundance of caution". But if there is a plan ready to go wont the bad guys just sit and wait for the operations to open? Two days, two weeks, two months.....it will make no difference to them.

What am I missing? is this not security theater?


You believe ordinary citizens are supposed to be told everything that is going on? Please!

hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2013 11:32 pm
@Foofie,
I believe that the american people should never be lied to by the american government, so if the american government says that there is only non specific chatter
about a threat then that damn well better be the truth.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 09:24 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I believe that the american people should never be lied to by the american government, so if the american government says that there is only non specific chatter
about a threat then that damn well better be the truth.


You can always vote with your feet, if that is not correct. There is no "iron curtain" in the U.S.

I don't mind being lied to, since I believe that similar to the masses not able to accept the truth, relative to our finite existences, with no afterlife (nor everlasting soul), giving religion a free-pass to lie to its respective flocks, I also believe the masses cannot feel comfortable possibly with the needs of America achieving its goals. By the way, the U.S. is a nice place to live, but not everyone is equal in their beliefs as to the purpose of the U.S., in my opinion.

But, if you want to stamp your foot in umbrage, enjoy.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 09:39 am
@hawkeye10,
I'm not sure what closing the embassies does either unless it is to improve security. If they are going to re-open next week with the same setup, I agree with you. I don't see the value of just announcing the intelligence. It also seems a little self-serving. "All those anti-surveillance people were wrong because we caught a threat!"
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 09:41 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I believe that the american people should never be lied to by the american government, so if the american government says that there is only non specific chatter
about a threat then that damn well better be the truth.

Disinformation is a classic intelligence tactic.

That's one reason why the whole Benghazi thing is so ridiculous. Even if wrong information was presented, even if it was deliberate, it was probably in furtherance of a security goal.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 09:59 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

I'm not sure what closing the embassies does either unless it is to improve security.

If they have a credible threat, even if they don't know the specific target, then they might be able to delay the attack long enough to gather more intelligence and prevent an actual attack.

And releasing the information might flush out more intelligence. The Bad Actors, seeing that some of their communications are compromised, suddenly get the flop sweats and run for the hills screaming, "you'll never catch me, coppers!"

(OK, a little hyperbolic, but you get the idea.)
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 10:05 am
@DrewDad,
I agree with the self-serving part, although I think it's for political capital. We're headed into the 2014 midterms. The last things the Dems want is to give the Rs any political capital with a repeat of an attack on a US embassy. This way, if there's an attack the White House can say they did due diligence; if there isn't they're the ones who have gained the political upper hand by claiming they've prevented an attack. Either way, it's political capital for the Ds.

Personally, I think an attack on Guantanamo or one of the US prisons holding al qauda prisoners is more likely.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/31/al-qaeda-guantanamo-inmates/2603035/
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 10:33 am
when Joey skips school for a week or three because he has the idea that maybe somebody plans to beat him up we dont generally hand out the high fives and back slaps. I dont see much of a win opportunity here for the administration
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 11:07 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
when Joey skips school for a week or three because he has the idea that maybe somebody plans to beat him up we dont generally hand out the high fives and back slaps.

That's because Joey shouldn't have to skip school to be safe at school.

If Joey's that afraid, then the faculty and staff aren't doing their jobs.





You should really reconsider the whole analogy thing. You're really, really bad at coming up with analogies.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 11:10 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I agree with the self-serving part,

Well, they're kinda damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If they have vague intel, and choose not to close things down and an attack occurs, then they get lambasted for not closing things down.

If they have vague intel and choose to close things down, then they're lambasted for being too cautious.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 11:12 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Personally, I think an attack on Guantanamo or one of the US prisons holding al qauda prisoners is more likely.

I've been to Gitmo and there is not going to be an attack there. 50 years of cold war made that place pretty impervious to attack unless you are willing to have a high body count on your side.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 12:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
I suspect that this is an evasive maneuver by the Obama administration. It's sick of playing defense in the public discussion of the NSA's snooping, the FBI reserving the right to follow every American's every step without a warrant, and all that. So now they're going for the easiest maneuver at hand by yelling "oh look! A terrorist threat!". Amplifying my suspicion, no such warning is coming from either Germany, or France (nor, I suspect, other countries I haven't checked). It's like the movie Wag The Dog come true.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 03:37 pm
@Thomas,
it is worth remembering that convincing the victim that they would die without the abuser is the number one technique in victim control.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 09:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
the more "information" that comes out the more goofy this closing up of shop looks. When we lived in Monterey Ca once the mom accross the road for the two years we were there would not allow her kids to play outside, ever, out of an "abundance of caution".......this looks like that.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2013 03:13 pm
Maybe they actually know there are credible threats and are doing the prudent thing? No, that can't be it.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2013 03:38 pm
@IRFRANK,
Quote:

Official warnings of imminent—or even of not so imminent—al-Qaida attacks have (fortunately) had a perfect record: They never seem to pan out.


During the George W. Bush administration, the public was regaled repeatedly with warnings that intelligence had determined, through an in-depth analysis of “chatter” and other such information, that al-Qaida was about to strike again.




Thus in May 2004—a few months before the presidential election—Attorney General John Ashcroft, standing beside the grim-faced director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, announced that “credible intelligence from multiple sources” indicated that al-Qaida was planning an attack on the United States in the next few months and specifically intended to “hit the United States hard.” He also pointed out ominously that the group had announced that it had completed “90 percent of the arrangements” for an attack.



Two months later, Department of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge relayed a similar warning.


No terrorist disaster transpired or was attempted during the remainder of 2004. Of course, in the view of many, calamity did nonetheless ensue with the re-election in November of George W. Bush—partly the result, they darkly suspect, of the artful, if unfulfilled, scare-mongering earlier in the year.


And the 2004 warnings were hardly unusual. A year earlier, John Negroponte, then the U.S. representative at the United Nations, declared there to be “a high probability that within two years al‑Qaida will attempt an attack using a nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction.”


And in 2007 DHS Director Michael Chertoff disclosed that his gut was telling him there’d be an attack that summer. Later that year U.S. intelligence was reportedly concluding that al-Qaida was “marshaling its reconstituted forces for a spectacular new attack on the United States.” There were also innumerable raisings of that color-coded threat indicator we all remember so fondly.


Regrettably, the Obama administration has never subjected massive homeland security expenditures to the kind of sober and systematic evaluation they so richly deserve after a decade of drunken-sailor profligacy. And it has continued to find threatening proto-al-Qaidas popping up everywhere.


However, it has reduced the official hysteria level. Only very occasionally have Obama’s representatives characterized the extremely limited terrorist threat as “existential.” The inflated phrase, “Global War on Terrorism,” has been consigned to well-deserved oblivion. And the administration has mostly eschewed generalized warnings of the Ashcroft-Ridge-Chertoff sort.


Because the current warnings and embassy closings across the Muslim world are coming from a less fear-mongering administration, then, it is possible there is more to them than there was to the older ones, and that the perfect failure record of such warnings will be broken.


But it must be said that the specifics—insofar as they exist—in these warnings don’t look any more convincing than those of old.


We are, as usual, told about “chatter” and about intercepts of vaguely-worded communications that fail to specify timing or targets. Although it can hardly be news to terrorists that their communications are constantly monitored by U.S. intelligence, the new revelations about the extent of the eavesdropping may have reminded them anew that they can easily push the U.S. into paroxysms of costly, self-punishing behavior just by communicating convincing information to their avid auditors about ominous, if idle, terror plans.


And there is déjà-vu in recent official comments that the “chatter” and streams of intelligence resemble those that preceded the 9/11 attacks. In 2007, reported warnings of an imminent “spectacular” terrorist attack included a senior official’s observation that “This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001.”


And those raising the alarm have a decided advantage: They can never be proved wrong. As Dan Gardner points out in his superb book, Future Babble, if there is an attack, they can claim prescience. If there isn’t, they can insist that their warnings and preparations prevented or deterred it while deftly classifying information that might determine whether that is true or not.


The suspicion this time, obviously, is that the warning, with what seems to be its outsize focus on embassies spread in a wide arc across over a dozen countries, has been primarily, and irrationally, impelled by the Benghazi experience—a tragedy that exacted exceptional political costs to those in charge.


However, experience questions whether such generalized warnings should be issued at all. If intelligence has uncovered specifics of target and time of attack, the sensible response, of course, is not to bloviate grandly, but to work to secure the likely target or targets or to use policing measure to disrupt the plot.


But if, as it appears thus far in the present case, the warnings are vague and unspecific, issuing proclamations of danger out of an “abundance of caution” (as it has been put by the State Department) scarcely helps the situation. It is not clear what individuals are supposed to do except perhaps to look over their shoulders more often, and the proclamations often exact substantial costs in unnecessary anxiety, disruption, inconvenience, and lost economic opportunity. Nothing wrong, I suppose, in telling Americans that Yemen is not the safest travel destination. But few are likely to need the warning.



At any rate, the record strongly suggests that warnings based on vague and unspecific intelligence have failed to stop or to protect against terrorist attacks. Conceivably, some attacks have been deterred by the proclamations, but, if so, one would expect truly dedicated terrorists, inconvenienced in their immediate planning, to move into action once the alarms have faded. But that, it seems, hasn’t happened.

John Mueller writes for Slate.

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/09/opinion/are-terror-warnings-pointless/
0 Replies
 
krabbeman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 07:06 pm
@Foofie,
Only good can come from our government bureaucrats shutting down, except our military they're great, but yeah I think anytime the federal union employees are off work, out of work, laid off- oh that's right we're talking public sector, (my bad) Do we really NEED a state department? I mean,...couldn't we get like a couple of secretaries (non union, so they actually get something accomplished) give them a charge card for the Hallmark Store, so they can send cards to the other countries once in a while so we can act like we care about all those people that hate us anyway? Perhaps we could even save some of the billions of dollars we're sending to these "ungrateful parasites", (whom I care about VERY much) so that we could take better care of oh, I dunno maybe our elderly, the children, victims of domestic abuse, people with special needs who don't have very luxurious lives? Just a thought.
0 Replies
 
krabbeman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 07:11 pm
@Thomas,
I have to agree Thomas! In my opinion: This Presididn't isn't worth the energy required to send him a nasty letter! He has no integrity, no morals and no character! He should be in prison!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Report: CIA foiled al-Qaida plot - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Happy New Year from Pakistan - Discussion by djjd62
ISIS or Daesh - Question by usmankhalid665
Nothing about Brussels? - Discussion by McGentrix
Flavors of terrorists - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is gained by the State Department Closing?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2019 at 08:01:04