home

Defense Intelligence Agency Wants to Outsource $1 Billion for Spying

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:45:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Walter Pincus in the Washington Post reports the Defense Intelligence Agency wants to spend $1 billion on contractors outside the U.S. to do its dirty work.

What work? Collecting and analyzing intelligence information. Can you say data-mining? That's my interpretation.

< Breaking! Iraq War and Surge Supporter Declares Surge A Failure | "One nation, under [surveillance], with liberty and justice for all." >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Defense Intelligence Agency Wants to Outsource $1 Billion for Spying | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What's Worse (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    Is that this is the new GOP trend to reduce government. Many of the outsourced contract workers were regular government workers. Now they are doing the same job at twice the pay.

    Ignoring the Warning (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:45:54 AM EST
    The Founding Fathers were suspicious of standing armies, since they're likely tools for tyranny. Eisenhower's famous farewell address warned of the military-industrial-(congressional, though that was deleted in the final draft) complex. Gore Vidal has alerted us to the perils of the NSA state and the lack of real democracy in our party duopoly. Yet, the Bush Administration grows the war budget beyond all reckoning as a sort of social engineering--militarism for the poor, high earnings for the corporate defense contractors--while his brain Rove looks to use the contracting  pork and the manipulation of fear to install a permanent Republican majority. Trouble is, between the earmark process rampant in Congress and general Democratic fecklessness this sort of robbery passes for policy. Can we make 2008 a step away from this?

    Parent
    Antonymic Economics (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:51:19 AM EST
    Can we make 2008 a step away from this?
    If we don't social security etc will be raided to pay for the GOP's 'purge' of government workers who become contract workers at twice their prior pay.

    Like all things in BushCo speak words mean their opposite.

    Parent

    "Our government does not..." (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TeddySanFran on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:28:11 PM EST
    Even more opportunities for deniability from the Rose Garden!

    The more contracting, the more chances to say that the US government doesn't do X.  Whatever evil X represents, BushCheneyCo can contract it out and thus deny the government does X.

    Wetwork, data-mining, eavesdropping on our allies, 24-type  torture: contract it all out to give the President plausible deniability.

    It is plain (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:21:43 PM EST
    that our lack of old fashioned human intelligence sources [read lack of brains in people who supported and support Bush] was one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq:
    ...peasants who believed uncritically what they were told and supported the war by their compliance.
    ...
    The infallible test for identifying a peasant is whether he believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. It is an unarguable fact, widely known for years, that Saddam was not behind it
    Outsourcing Spying (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by OldPara on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    "Buying" your intel from commercial or outside agencies guarantees a high percentage of bogus information or circulatory reporting. Having spent 24+ years in the business (for Uncle Sammy), I can attest that much of your effort as both a collector or analyzer of "intel" is spent trying to gauge your sources - their accuracy & their truthfulness. A lot of "information" is made up or else respun and recirculated to generate another payment. You have to vet your sources and keep close track of them. Also cross-match your sources with agreeing agencies of other countries, when they let you. Some sources feed multiple agencies, given the chance.  You can bet that any for-hire agencies will NOT let you learn any details about their sources: proprietary information.  If we turn to "bought" intel, we will be fed a lot of quite plausible but fictional tales. Might as well hire underemployed sci-fi authors  to create intel for us.  About like asking Crichton to the White House to tell you about global warming: you will receive what he wants to tell you & what you want to hear.

    You folks are funny. (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:08:54 PM EST
    It is plain that our lack of old fashioned human intelligence souces - read spies - and our reliance on "electronics" was one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq.

    Now, six (6) years later and when the possibility of fixing that comes up you go into a spasm of complaints.

    Please, you're so sh[r]ill (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    It is plain that our lack of old fashioned human intelligence souces - read spies - and our reliance on "electronics" was one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq.

    I'll go with "lack of old fashioned human intelligence."  As in "common sense."

    We had Scot Ritter and Hans Blix ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ, telling us that there was no evidence of WMD.  They were the best people, in the best position to know that, and THEY WERE RIGHT.

    What did we do with that accurate but inconvenient information?

    Parent

    Being right isn't enough (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    Except for people wanting to play the "gotcha" game.

    Neither of these two were "spies." Ritter certainly wasn't well received.

    A true intelligence network does not have its members being interviewed, nor its contacts on everyone's resume. It quietly does its job, and its established accuracy provides the needed creditability.

    Our problems are long term, going back to the Church committee in the early 70's in which members feinged disbelieve that people who will spy on their country are usually not nice, and that everynow and then some agent must kill.

    Parent

    Dont you mean spy FOR (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    their country; or, was that another Freudian slip?

    Two words on your gutless passing the buck for intelligence "screw ups" (i.e., cynical, underhanded, manipulation of info) and your perrenial blame-the-Left (Church), whine: Tough T*tty.

    Parent

    Nope I didn't (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    I meant spy on their country. That is the people we need, and those are the ones that are hard to get, and who most likely will be nasty unlikable types with not a lot to recommend them beyond the information they can provide.

    It is hard to untangle your claims, but I gather you, for whatever reason, don't think we had a huge intelligence screw up prior to 9/11. That is so dumb I won't even commen.

    As for your nasties, yes things have been though on those killed and wounded, less so for commentators such as yourself who hide behind their keyboard will trying to muster a defense for what the Church committee started.

    Have a nice day.


    Parent

    It was the refusal to accept the analysis (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:45:49 PM EST
    That differed from what the Bushies wanted to hear that was the screw up (as has been explained to you many times before), but you don't want to hear that, I know.



    Parent

    Molly B. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:13:32 PM EST
    I wonder if you can ever think three thoughts without blaming Bush???

    And you fail to connect the dots.

    An analysis, by its nature, is speculative. That is vastly different that information provided from real, trusted human sources.

    So, irrespective of what Bush believed, or didn't believe, it was the lack of human intelligence that was at the base of the screws by Repubs and Demos.

    Parent

    Again you don't want to hear it (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:05:50 PM EST
    but this is not speculative. You have been provided with links to stories in legitmate news organizations such as the WaPo and the NY Times several times by several posters here.

    You can whine about "blaming Bush" all you want. HST said "the buck stops here". According to you the buck stops everywhere but at Bush's desk.

    Well the fact is, if you hold the office, you are responsible for your minions. And when your minions set up their own analyst shop and put Doug Feith, whose wacky analysis ignored the pros at every US intelligence agency, in charge,  Bush and his supporters (and I include you) don't get to whine about bad intel.

    It was Bush and Cheney's people doing the job Bush and Cheney put them in. They chose to ignore the professional anaylists. So shall ye sow, so shall ye reap. Again all of this has been linked to you before here at TL, you just don't want to believe it. Which, all things considered, is fitting.

    The only person failing to connect the dots is YOU. Remove the mote from your eye, before worrying about a splinter in mine.



    Parent

    You lost me (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:47:12 PM EST
    when you started to talk about the NYT as a reliable source...

    Facts don't need analysis. Especially by unnamed sources..

    We had almost no human intelligence before 9/11 in the ME.

    In the following dust up we were forced to use analysis. Fine stuff for "ifs and buts" but damnable uncomfortable when you have to committ assests..

    We now have a chance to fix that.

    The Left doesn't want to. It looks like you want to keep following a failed policy.

    Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing and expecting different results?

    Parent

    Facts don't need analysis. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:59:59 AM EST
    Then why do the intel agencies employ analysts?

    Why was Dough Feith made one by Bush and Cheney.

    I can tell you are in over your head.

    The NYT reported the facts, they are resposnible for Feith's whacky conclusions that Cheney and Bush so dearly loved and belived.



    Parent

    should be NOT responsible for (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:12:10 AM EST
    The NYT reported the facts, they are NOT resposnible for Feith's whacky conclusions that Cheney and Bush so dearly loved and belived.

    Its going to be a long day...



    Parent

    You understand the point, (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:42:54 AM EST
    and really why you even want to argue about the need for improving our intelligence programs is beyond me.

    Parent
    Be the change you want to see, ppj. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:46:33 AM EST
    Start at home. Improve your intelligence.

    Parent
    Its not the intel, its the use (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    Feith had no expertise in intel analysis. He just fed the Whitehouse what they wanted to hear. This fact has been widely reported. I f you don't know this much, you are in over your head.



    Parent

    And your next question is? (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 07:58:50 PM EST
    Because the agencies get very, very, very few "facts."

    Hopefully, human intellogemce would increase the "facts" and reduce the analysis... (spelled g u e s s i ng)

    Parent

    Change that to (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:49:58 PM EST
    Facts don't need analysts. They speak for themselves.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    That is one of the stupidest things you have ever said, which is saying a lot.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 07:57:04 PM EST
    Too bad you don't live in a reality based world.

    "The house is on fire!"

    Squeaky: "Is the fire hot? How tall are the flames..."

    Parent

    I'll go along with that (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    it was the lack of human intelligence
    yes, bush and bushlickers have exhibited an extreme lack of intelligence. Whether it was establishing their own intelligence analysis because they refused to believe anything that didn't fit their decision to start the war, not planning for after the war or their delusions, that it'd be over in 6 days and we'd be greeted with flowers or their lies about WMDs (we KNOW where they are) , they have screwed everything up.

    this, pure and simple, is bush's war.

    support the troops, get them out of harm's way and away from those morons in the WH that haven't been right yet.

    Parent

    Sailor still does the strawman bit (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:03:56 PM EST
    Perhaps you missed were the CIA has admitted to not have a plan to fight al-Qaeda...

    Parent
    the CIA did have 'boots on the ground' (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    and then bushco outed Valerie Plame. And they didn't talk about it.

    Scott Ritter wasn't a spy, he was an inspector and he found nothing. It was his duty to say so. (frankly I'm surprised at your contempt for him, seeing as how you always misquote him.)

    The rest of the bad knowledge, was actually spin put in place by cheney (see OSP by feith) and they deliberately spun everything to make a political point.

    They started a war knowing that they were determined to start for years (see PNAC) and ignored, demoted and belittled anyone who disagreed with their intent of world domination.

    Now, six (6) years later and when the possibility of fixing that comes up you go into a spasm of complaints.
    Outsourcing it to private companies where they will have even more control w/o oversight is not 'fixing' it, it is just more of the same problem.

    Parent
    Sailor does the misquote thing (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    Valerie Plame wasn't a spy. She was an analyst who went to work every day at CIA headquarters.
    Do you understand the difference??

    I never called Ritter a spy. In fact I pointed that out to RePack. Also, I never misquoted him. I quoted straight from the Time interview and provided a link.  Why do you make up things up??

    It has been the Left who has been going into spasms claiming that Bush is responsible for us not knowing about 911.. As I said, 6 years later they now don't want to fix it.

    Parent

    Not a spy? (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    August 03, 2007
    Judge Backs CIA on Plame Memoir
    According to the New York Times, a federal judge ruled that Valerie Plame Wilson will not be able to disclose her tenure as an operative at the Central Intelligence Agency in her new book, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House -- even though it's already been published in the Congressional Record.

    Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA from 1985 to 2006.

    CIA employees are required to have book manuscripts screened by the agency before they are published. Other than the dates of her tenure, there were no other objections by the agency.

    Other than the dates of her tenure, there were no other objections by the agency, including no objections by the CIA to the title.

    You really should have more coffee before you comment.

    Or are you just pretending again?

    Parent

    You really need to understand (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:52:49 PM EST
    the meaning of words..

    When she was overseas working as a covert agent, you could call her a spy.

    When she came in out of the cold and started commuting to Langley every day she became an analysts.


    Parent

    Careful there sparky... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:26:17 AM EST
    You could hurt yourself trying to juggle and backpedal that fast.

    Parent
    When you have made a mistake (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:45:04 AM EST
    and have it corrected, you always go for the attack.

    That is just so rvealing.... just so you.....

    Parent

    wrongwing projectionist (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:30:23 AM EST
    ppj, as always, ehgages in the exact thing he accuses others of.

    shorter ppj: sure bush & co have screwed everything up, but we should trust them now.

    Parent

    Sailor can't figure (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:05:20 PM EST
    As I have said before...

    Trust but verify.

    No... Reagan said that.

    Parent

    Maybe it was something to do with (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    the lack of old fashioned human intelligence sources?

    Parent
    Probably Not (none / 0) (#2)
    by Strick on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:56:40 PM EST
    Can you say data-mining? That's my interpretation.

    I don't think so.  It reads more like they're going to outsource classic intelligence gathering and analysis.  Data mining wouldn't be terribly effective in what they're describing which seems to include things like human intelligence assets in Iraq. There's just not enough data to make the kinds of statistical analysis involved in data mining worth while.

    It's also the DIA, not any of the agencies that usually raise privacy concerns domestically.

    they grow the 5th Estate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sumner on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:13:46 PM EST


    of course the first 4 Estates (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sumner on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 06:12:51 PM EST
    are obliged to observe the People's rights.


    Parent
    corporate welfare for proprietary spy businesses (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Sumner on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:27:31 PM EST
    Hey, remember that Eschalon was an international creature originally comprising the countries of the USA, Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand.

    The 5th Estate is bigger than nation. 5th Estate = Corporatism/Intelligence.

    look here from 1997.

    Operations, is that which they do with the surveillance and is used among other things, for political reasons, and to predict behavior and to develop psyops and to guide hidden hands that make bad things happen.

    Parent

    Al Qaida (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    Let them contract with Al-Qaida; they have good intelligence and an excellent track record. Since they are not particularly busy, unless you accept Bush calling everyone shooting at us in Iraq Al-Qaida, and will be happy to help.

    Outsourcing Spying (none / 0) (#9)
    by OldPara on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    Bad idea. Would promote abuses by agencies that are not under effective scrutiny and would simply give Bush greater deniability for abuses than he has already claimed.  

    Defense Intelligence Agency Wants to Outsource $1 Billion for Spying | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment