Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exclusive: Inside the Military's Secret Undercover Army

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–45 of 45 posts

Re: Exclusive: Inside the Military's Secret Undercover Army

#41

Post by graderjs »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #40
graderjs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really true. There's lots of SAPs that have no Leg oversight, and Exec doesn't know about them. DoE has lots of black budget programs that don't have the same scrutiny as DoD ones. And even in DoD there's so many SAPs, it's not possible that Exec and Leg have been briefed in to all of them, nor asked to be. So while theoretically, Exec and Leg should be able to look at any SAP, how are they going to know a…

Respectfully, you seem to be confusing the fact that there are government agencies which report to the EB and are overseen by the LB, and these agencies have highly sensitive SAPs about which very few people know specifics (true) with the notion that the EB has no idea in general about what goes on through these SAPs and there is no accountability within these agencies for methods used by these SAPs and/or the outcom…

I probably am. I'm not an expert in this. Sorry, if you know more about it than I do I defer to you. But what I understand is, say I had a SAP that was running psychological experimentation on everyday Americans without their knowledge or consent, it sounds as if you're saying that it's guaranteed the EB would know "in general terms" this was going on. I think that's false. I definitely think it's possible that there are blacker than black SAPs that escape any EB/LB oversight whatsoever. But, please, enlighten me differently if that's not true :) ;p xx

Re: Exclusive: Inside the Military's Secret Undercover Army

#42

Post by leroy_masochist »

graderjs wrote: post #41
leroy_masochist wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, you seem to be confusing the fact that there are government agencies which report to the EB and are overseen by the LB, and these agencies have highly sensitive SAPs about which very few people know specifics (true) with the notion that the EB has no idea in general about what goes on through these SAPs and there is no accountability within these agencies for methods used by these SAPs and/or the outcom…

I probably am. I'm not an expert in this. Sorry, if you know more about it than I do I defer to you. But what I understand is, say I had a SAP that was running psychological experimentation on everyday Americans without their knowledge or consent, it sounds as if you're saying that it's guaranteed the EB would know "in general terms" this was going on. I think that's false. I definitely think it's possible that there…

Shady stuff including psychological experiments definitely went on during the Cold War (with a lot of EB support for that general sort of thing if not explicit approval of every program) but one of the main results of the Church Commission and subsequent legislation like Title 50 updates, etc, was the implementation of severe limitations with regard to what intelligence agencies can do involving US civilians.

To the extent that there's anything "blacker than black" it's the decisions that intelligence officers and the contract employees who support them do on their own initiative - that, and things that are done under the aegis of foreign governments.

It's an ugly world out there and the US does ugly things in its citzens' name, and many of them are openly reported, e.g., killing children with hot shrapnel via drone strikes. Shady clandestine paramilitary operations do certainly happen, most of which never see the light of day. But even the SAPest of SAPs will run into big problems if it messes with US citizens in any capacity without very high-level authorization, which is more or less never given. The Awlaki sanction was a big, big decision for example. I'm pretty darn sure that psychological experiments on everyday Americans without their consent is not a thing that's happening.

Re: Exclusive: Inside the Military's Secret Undercover Army

#43

Post by graderjs »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #42
graderjs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably am. I'm not an expert in this. Sorry, if you know more about it than I do I defer to you. But what I understand is, say I had a SAP that was running psychological experimentation on everyday Americans without their knowledge or consent, it sounds as if you're saying that it's guaranteed the EB would know "in general terms" this was going on. I think that's false. I definitely think it's possible that there…

Shady stuff including psychological experiments definitely went on during the Cold War (with a lot of EB support for that general sort of thing if not explicit approval of every program) but one of the main results of the Church Commission and subsequent legislation like Title 50 updates, etc, was the implementation of severe limitations with regard to what intelligence agencies can do involving US civilians. To the…

Cool, this is an interested perspective, thanks for the read. It was really good to get all that information. After reading that I'm more inclined to believe you with regard to operations on US citizens, and those done by the domestic LE/intelligence/security agencies.

I suppose a few other counterpoints I have are how I heard numerous times that Trump wasn't briefed into certain things because people in intelligence thought he might loud mouth about it. And secondly, I think the scope for discretion, noted by your, "it's the decisions that intelligence officers and the contract employees who support them do on their own initiative - that, and things that are done under the aegis of foreign governments." is actually pretty large. Especially when you consider that large multinational corporations might be contracted. I suppose I'm talking more about defense/security related tech programs, and less about actual intelligence operations, tho I threw in that obvious example to make a point. I'm prepared to accept that's how it used to be but no longer is with regard to the latter at least.

But on the technology/science side, I'm less convinced black SAPs have full-spectrum EB oversight. Does the EB really already know everything that goes on at Los Alamos? Nevada Test Site? Or various defense corporation facilities worldwide contracted and funded at least in part by the US government? I definitely think there are some people who have a large picture, but I don't believe it to be EB, unfortunately, as I said at first, for "democracy" :( ;p xx

How many layers within layers might those companies and programs have, where they are receiving funding and technology and not filtering the general picture back up to EB? I think there's a definite possibility of that, for sure! :p ;) xx

I'm going to go read a bit more about Awlaki, Church, Title 50. Thank you again!! :P ;) xx

Re: Exclusive: Inside the Military's Secret Undercover Army

#44

Post by leroy_masochist »

graderjs wrote: post #43
leroy_masochist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shady stuff including psychological experiments definitely went on during the Cold War (with a lot of EB support for that general sort of thing if not explicit approval of every program) but one of the main results of the Church Commission and subsequent legislation like Title 50 updates, etc, was the implementation of severe limitations with regard to what intelligence agencies can do involving US civilians. To the…

Cool, this is an interested perspective, thanks for the read. It was really good to get all that information. After reading that I'm more inclined to believe you with regard to operations on US citizens, and those done by the domestic LE/intelligence/security agencies. I suppose a few other counterpoints I have are how I heard numerous times that Trump wasn't briefed into certain things because people in intelligence…

With regard to Trump, there was a lot of media reporting around him being sloppy with classified material, etc -- and it's entirely possible that career intelligence professionals, aka the "deep state", took this into account when putting together briefings for him. But aside from that particular presidency, generally speaking, the commander in chief is almost never briefed on details of sources and methods for the most sensitive SAPs, simply because of the general principle of "need to know", i.e., if you want to keep something secret you should tell as few people about it as possible. With that said, the highest levels of the EB are certainly briefed on the key insights delivered by said SAPs.

As far as Los Alamos, aliens, etc -- super interesting topic. The recent UFO footage released by the Navy sure does make you wonder. Who knows....

Re: Exclusive: Inside the Military's Secret Undercover Army

#45

Post by graderjs »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #44
graderjs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, this is an interested perspective, thanks for the read. It was really good to get all that information. After reading that I'm more inclined to believe you with regard to operations on US citizens, and those done by the domestic LE/intelligence/security agencies. I suppose a few other counterpoints I have are how I heard numerous times that Trump wasn't briefed into certain things because people in intelligence…

With regard to Trump, there was a lot of media reporting around him being sloppy with classified material, etc -- and it's entirely possible that career intelligence professionals, aka the "deep state", took this into account when putting together briefings for him. But aside from that particular presidency, generally speaking, the commander in chief is almost never briefed on details of sources and methods for the m…

Cool, good to know. Thanks again! :) xx
Post reply on HN