Tom Cruise made “pre-crime'” a futuresque and controversial method of law enforcement in the 2002 movie Minority Report.Ten years later, the idea of preemptively identifying a criminal — particularly an inside threat — is taking shape within the U.S. Defense Department, reports Joe Gould at Army Times.Whether it's a low-ranking soldier intent on dumping secret information to WikiLeaks, or a rogue Sergeant going on a shooting rampage, insider threats can seriously plague the military and the government as a whole.
Taking a novel approach, the Pentagon is spearheading research into studying the predictive behavior of personnel in the lead-up to a betrayal.
Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported a new intelligence initiative coming out of the Pentagon. We are constantly reminded that intelligence agencies have difficulty sharing their work, yet the Pentagon has decided to create another intelligence agency — the Defense Clandestine Service. Many professionals believe that this initiative is doomed to fail.
Since the technological revolution, intelligence-collection among human activity has swiftly deteriorated. Technology has superseded human intelligence (HUMINT) collection efforts with tools such as Signals Intelligence, Measures and Signatures Intelligence, and Open Source. Today, HUMINT has become an endangered species. The good news behind the newly formed Defense Clandestine Service demonstrates that America's HUMINT is like the bald eagle — it may be endangered, but it is making a comeback.
America's clandestine activities and HUMINT operations have been crippled by years of internal feuding dating back as far as the Carter administration. Creating additional organizations will not fix the problem; rather, pre-existing organizational resolve is needed. As one operative who spoke on condition of anonymity stated, “[y]ou don't just go out and buy a new car because you need an oil change and some new tires.” When it comes to intelligence, specifically HUMINT, we don't have the money to purchase an entirely new luxury, so we need to fix the one we have.
“HUMINT is assuredly broken. A series of incapable DCI's and self-promoting Deputy Directors for Operations (now called National Clandestine Service) have converted what was once a stellar service into a cadre of messenger boys begging for scraps from foreign liaisons. This problem began long ago with Admiral Stansfield Turner[.]” -Robert David Steele
Washington – The United States Marine Corps has banned audible farting in Afghanistan because it is culturally offensive to civilians working with the military and members of the Afghan National Army.
The Military Times Marine Corps blog, Battle Rattle recently posted the news that “audible farting has been banned for some Marines downrange because it offends the Afghans.” The ban has caused a stir among former and current members of the military who question the reasoning behind the decision which has ignited a firestorm of comments from readers and fellow bloggers of Battle Rattle. Military soldiers have already been required to obey regulations ordering them to not curse around members of the Afghan army or the civilians they encounter while on patrol. They are also under orders to not discuss women or politics with people from Afghanistan. But for now, breaking wind could earn them an appearance before their superior officers. For the military that means no more gas blasters, bean bombers, flame-throwers or anal acoustics at night. The roar of morning thunder, air biscuits or flatulence by any name will no longer be tolerated. Anything but an inaudible passing of gas could get you in trouble if it's within earshot of an Afghani, according to Battle Rattle. Blogger Gina Cavallaro writesabout the ban on the offensive behaviour:
They’re not supposed to cuss because it could be misunderstood (that one goes out the window a lot). And they stay away from talking about politics, religion or girls because those topics could escalate into major disagreements (they can’t communicate anyway because of the language barrier). But farting? That’s practically a sport. Ok, it’s not soccer, but a good contest could open the door for cross-cultural exchanges, jokes and other gallows humor.
Jim Campbell expressed his outrage over the decision by senior military officials and wrote: “So now we understand that Muslims in Afghanistan are offended by the sound of anal gas explosions but are quite comfortable with, beheading, stoning, female genital mutilation, pedophilia, amputations, and hanging or burning homosexuals.”
Phi Beta Iota: We do not make this stuff up. Ten years into killing all these people, and we focus on farts now? Perhaps the Marine Corps should spend more time acquiring a proper weapon for its infantry, and keeping the US Navy honest on brown water capabilities including non-existent naval gunfire support.
Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the nation's largest spy agency and its cyberwarfare command, is urging adoption of legislation to require companies providing critical services such as power and transportation to fortify their computer networks against cyber attacks.
Though he did not specify a particular bill, Alexander, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, said in a letter Friday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that “recent events have shown that a purely voluntary and market driven system is not sufficient” to protect such networks.
One of core component's of the neoliberal agenda is privatization of state assets. Attached is one countries reaction to the inequalities and economic distortions privatization introduces. CS Afloat in the Mediterranean
The head of state, confident after electoral victory, tells the governor of the central bank what to do, introduces forex controls and announces that a key sector of the economy, sold off to private investors 13 years ago, is to be nationalised. Two members of the government are appointed to head this enterprise, now in public hands again, and its private owners are told to go. The European Commission, The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times are furious about this “shabby act of economic piracy”. The Economist suggests that the “pirate state” should be excluded from the G20, and that its citizens (who voted in the head of state) must get visas to travel abroad.
This is not Europe. It is Argentina. As President Cristina Kirchner explained on 16 April when most of the assets of the Spanish multinational Repsol, majority shareholder in the Argentinian oil company YPF, were about to be nationalised: “We are the only country in Latin America, and I would say in the world, that doesn’t control its natural resources.” Public ownership is not as prevalent as she suggests — Total, BP, ExxonMobil and others are private companies — but she is thinking of earlier battles to recover common sources of wealth: Mossadeq’s nationalisation of British Petroleum in Iran in 1951, Nasser’s seizure of the Suez Canal for Egypt in 1956, Boumedienne’s acquisition of Elf and Total assets for Algeria in 1971, Putin’s seizure of the Yukos company in Russia in 2003 and Hugo Chávez’s takeover of PDVSA (Petroleum of Venezuela).
Just as retro ideas from a bygone era can inspire modern fashion, film, and TV trends, today’s researchers are being empowered by the revival of an innovative technology concept from the past: open-source hardware.
Open-source hardware is the public availability of designs, mechanical drawings, or schematics of physical technology, such as computer processors or network switches. The Arduino electronics board is one popular example.
The concepts behind open hardware have been around for decades. But, with the rise of intellectual property in the 1980s and 1990s, open hardware fell out of favor. Today, perhaps thanks to the success of the open-source software movement, open hardware is back, according to its proponents. In 2012, it allows researchers to measure the time-of-flight of neutrinos, enables poor rural communities to communicate freely, and creates new business markets.
The Defense Department has inadequately protected from reprisals whistleblowers who have reported wrongdoing, according to an internal Pentagon report, and critics are calling for action to be taken against those who have been negligent.The report, dated May 2011, accuses the officials, who work in the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General, of persistent sloppiness and a systematic disregard for Pentagon rules meant to protect those who report fraud, abuses and the waste of taxpayer funds, according to a previously undisclosed copy. The report was obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.
A three-person team of investigators, assigned to review the performance of the Directorate for Military Reprisal Investigations, concluded that in 2010, the directorate repeatedly turned aside evidence of serious punishments inflicted on those who had complained.The actions included threatened or actual discharges, demotions, firings, prosecutions and a mental health referral. At least one of the alleged reprisals was taken because the complainer had written to Congress, an act that Pentagon regulations say is a “protected communication” immune from retaliation. Some of the other whistleblowers had alleged discrimination, travel violations and “criminality,” the report states. Continue reading “Eagle: Pentagon report says Defense Department whistleblowers have been left vulnerable to reprisals”
