21–30 of 45 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its business insider. They are a glorified clickbait outlet that so happens to have a good name. To name a few other BS outlets that once had a good reputation: Forbes Cnn Inc. venturebeat Mashable The list goes on...
I was recently wondering what I'd need to do to browse HN minus the news sites
Though I can't recall what the exact changes are, this post doesn't show up at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, it's not the fact it exists that is shocking. It's the fact that it exists outside of any oversight and apparently without any consideration of US or foreign law. I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now. But the more the US flaunts internal laws and norms on war, the more likely aggressors are going to put them aside and we're back to the savagery of World War I…
>I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?
I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was about, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?
Not sure what OP meant, but from what I understand (which is very little) the Geneva Conventions forbid "perfidy", which includes "feigning civilian, non-combatant status". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy . I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was a…
Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I feel like this piece is written in such a sensationalistic fashion that I can’t understand what the real story is..? All the various branches of US intelligence and military have clandestine operations.. is that supposed to be shocking?
Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I feel like this piece is written in such a sensationalistic fashion that I can’t understand what the real story is..? All the various branches of US intelligence and military have clandestine operations.. is that supposed to be shocking?
Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I feel like this piece is written in such a sensationalistic fashion that I can’t understand what the real story is..? All the various branches of US intelligence and military have clandestine operations.. is that supposed to be shocking?
What I found most surprising was the number of people involved. 60000 people involved in clandestine special ops ? The entire FBI only employs 35000.
How am I supposed to verify any of this? I'm not inclined to believe any news article on faith alone.
or any of the other capitalized 3 letter agencies
It's fun (and good for a career) to set up 'cybercommands' and looking-through-keyhole departments with a large logistical tail. Secrety organizations are easier to fund and harder to shutdown.
I'd say that you are simply seeing the natural result of a top-heavy military with less to do than meets the eye. Feature creep is a thing, especially in a growth industry.
Ideally, the various factions that run an increasingly imperial government each have their own intelligence services or even multiple ones that are controlled via competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?
Not sure what OP meant, but from what I understand (which is very little) the Geneva Conventions forbid "perfidy", which includes "feigning civilian, non-combatant status". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy . I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was a…
It’s a very blurry line, but actual combat seems to be one major distinction. Disguising a battleship as an enemy or merchant vessel seems to be okay...as long as the disguise is dropped before engaging. However, marking it as a hospital ship seems right out regardless of the situation because the hospital emblem is specially protected because those ships are never supposed to be attacked.
This database has many countries’ interpretation of the differences: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I found most surprising was the number of people involved. 60000 people involved in clandestine special ops ? The entire FBI only employs 35000.
Define "involved" though. Military operations have extremely long logistics tails compared to civilian law enforcement, thus inflating the personnel on the books.
This includes units like the 75th Ranger Regiment, most likely the largest SOF organization. According to a quick glance at their Wiki task org, 14 of the 27 COs exist in either a support, command, or training capacity. This roughly breaks down to 50% of the entire Regiment, and the 75th should (in theory) have the highest ratio of trigger pullers to support personnel within the SOF world.
Additionally, most of these SOF organizations have other (more conventional) mission sets they would be supporting at the same time. It can also be assumed that less than half of an organization's personnel are deployed at any given time, while the remaining personnel remain stateside retraining and preparing for their rotation--leaving a relatively small percentage of the alleged 30k SOF personnel actively participating in clandestine operations.