| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Tom Maguire explains why revealing NSA program hurts | |
| 2006-01-10 | |
Well, dare we presume that after four years The Proragm (of NSA warrantless eavesdropping) has show results? MS. Harman [ranking Democrat on the House Intel Committee] seems to think so. Consequently, three ideas spring to mind: (1) Suppose, over the last few years, a few Al Qaeda plots have gone sour due to The Program. The after-action folks at Al Qaeda may wonder What Went Wrong - for example, did a defector rat them out, did a money trail get traced, were they videotaped while buying explosives, what? A series of Times front pagers highlighting a successful program of communications intercepts may provide them a helpful clue and let them focus on their real weakness, rather than encouraging them to waste time and resources trying to plug fifteen possible non-leaks. (2) The AQ communication strategy presumably balances flexibility, speed, and security, using, for example, some mix of couriers and electronics. A big Times front pager or ten might prompt them to re-think the mix. That could be a good thing, if their revised procedures are unduly cumbersome. But it might not be, if their more-secure new system lets them evade detection. (3) Any communication sysytem is susceptible to (a) bad design; and (b) bad implementation. For example, once we broke the Enigma code in WWII, the most diligent radio operator in Germany could not secure their communications because the basic design was flawed. However - AQ may have a well-designed system, but it is still liable to human error due to laziness, stupidity, nerves, or whatever. For example, some fool who just couldn't resist calling Mom once a week might have blown a plot a year ago (NO, I have no idea, nor do you). Today, even with three weeks of reminders on the NY Times front page that THE NSA IS LISTENING, a similar AQ a-hole might be calling Mom right now. However, that sort of lucky break is currently just a bit less likely - presumably, the AQ people who worry about security have been screaming their heads off to remind the rest to button everything down. If these NY Times stories have (1) provided useful after-action intel to AQ; (2) prompted a sensible re-design of the AQ comm system; or (3) prompted more diligent implementation of an already well-designed system, then we have been hurt. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Bird Dog must be among the assigned "student scholars" paid for by the DNC to try and restore history more to their liking |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-10 20:46 |
| #13 BirdDog President Reagan just didn't throw money at DOD (though they dearly needed thanks to Jimmuh) he reestablished our military as worlds finest, turned back Soviet expansion in Central / South America, foiled Soviet plans in Afghanistan, and basically crushed the remainder of the Soviet Union. Bush 41: Gulf War, Bush 43 Afghanistan, Iraq and the greater WoT. ...and Clinton did what? |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-01-10 18:49 |
| #12 There is nothing in U.S. history to support that myth That was a different Democratic party you're talking about, back then. Those presidents are one reason I was a Dem. The current crop of party leaders and candidates is the main reason I'm not one any more. |
| Posted by: used to be a Dem 2006-01-10 15:58 |
| #11 BirdDog, any president in WWII, Republican or Democrat, would have done what FDR and Truman did. Not to take away from either man, both were great presidents in WWII, but a) that war was forced on us b) no president would have gotten us ready sooner or later than FDR did c) the war would have been fought essentially the same -- Germany first, Japan second, and start in North Africa -- regardless of who was president. You might also remember that it was two Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson, who got us all the way in Vietnam. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-01-10 15:53 |
| #10 Well, Mark E., I find the constant boast by Republicans that they are "stronger on national defense" equally hillarious. There is nothing in U.S. history to support that myth. Democrats have the advantage most definitely on that score: Truman: dropped the atom bomb on Japan FDR: Defeated Hitler WWII JFK: Stood down the Russians in the Cuban Missle Crisis Throwing money at the DOD (Ronald Raygun) doesnt make one "stronger on defense".lol |
| Posted by: BirdDog 2006-01-10 13:15 |
| #9 "Well CyberSarge, I'm sure the Democratic leadership would charge the same complaints you have against the Bush administration as it's really a matter of perception." The Dem leadership saying that Bush is weak on terror doesn't even pass the laugh test. I'm sure some believe it, though.... |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-01-10 13:06 |
| #8 Well CyberSarge, I'm sure the Democratic leadership would charge the same complaints you have against the Bush administration as it's really a matter of perception. It's pretty obvious that you arent that enamored with the Democratic Party or its leaders. That's a pretty hateful thing to be "praying" for. |
| Posted by: BirdDog 2006-01-10 11:55 |
| #7 Well Bird it’s just that the Senior Dhimmi leadership has thrown so many lies, distortions, and accusations that I would really like them to be caught with something that is truly un-defendable. Yes it may be unchristian to pray for it but I will go to confession and get that cleared up later. FYI I highly suspect (but have no proof) that one of the Dhimmi leadership is leaking secrets to undermine this country and when they are found out there will be hell to pay. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-01-10 11:36 |
| #6 red dog: dont have one I'm a different type of dog..lol I hunt my own birds..if you know what i mean. |
| Posted by: BirdDog 2006-01-10 11:23 |
| #5 call your master bird pup |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2006-01-10 11:08 |
| #4 I'm trying to understand why anyone would be "praying" that the leaker would be a democratic leader of congress? |
| Posted by: BirdDog 2006-01-10 11:04 |
| #3 The harm is really to the future. NSA was working with the telecom industry to route as much international traffic as possible through the US so that it would be easier to intercept. Now foreign nations will have to be more careful, at least publicly, to assure their citizens that their telecom is not compromised by being routed through the US. It will just make NSA's job harder in the future. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-10 10:08 |
| #2 Isn't exposing state secrets a crime? Regardless of the motivation? So why hasn't this rat been cracked? I can only presume it was done for political reasons, or money. Either way the guy should be imprisoned. What is the secret, magical force that protects these guys, and why don't we hear more about them being tracked down and prosecuted? Anyone? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-01-10 10:01 |
| #1 Now my feelings are hurt Steve because you don't remember that I too worked at the Agency (83-88). It remains to be seen what we lost by the patriot/traitor exposed when they gave up this story. I would like to think that Osama and Co. have very few options for communications so the affect will minimal. Whoever let out the secret needs to be prosecuted and sent to prison (praying that it was Pelosi). |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-01-10 07:44 |