Comments for Homeland Defense Intel and Analysis...

Homeland Defense Intel and Analysis...

Mon, 04 May 2009 07:24:45 -0600

...the gift that keeps on giving! Mind you, before I'm allowed to brief a 2 star or equivalent, my brief will have been examined and defended (by me) at least four different times. And that's not talklng about what happens for a public release outside of my little slice of bureaucracy.One can't help but believe that DHS has a similar process. One hopes anyway. Yet the evidence at times suggests otherwise.The DHS I&A has released a lexicon. That's a good idea, as the purpose of a published lexicon is to establish a common language and agreed-upon definitions, in order to keep the...

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-05-05

Tue, 05 May 2009 13:33:23 -0600

Except to add that they are right 'bout them 'Ricans. Do you know why there are none of them in Star Trek?

Because they won't work in the future either. :-<>

Comment from Kevin on 2009-05-05

Tue, 05 May 2009 13:32:54 -0600

"And, this thread is officially dead."

Huzzah! And for once, I'm not responsible or being blamed for its demise!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-05

Tue, 05 May 2009 13:13:21 -0600

And, this thread is officially dead.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-05

Tue, 05 May 2009 12:51:22 -0600

Hmmm, Beth ... this could be construed both ways. LOL

Comment from Beth on 2009-05-05

Tue, 05 May 2009 07:07:50 -0600

fdcol63, we middle-aged women types would rather not be reminded of things that sag and droop, thank you very much.

Comment from Old Fat Sailor on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 22:49:49 -0600

I, is Homeland Security playing into the hands of the terrorists? If I remember my Mao correctly he compared the use of terror to the Chinese version of Go, Wei Chi. He said the reactionaries must be forced to marganalize the mainstream, and with this they are "Put at the edge of the board," there to be welcomed by the revolutionaries. The purpose of terror is not to make the central power give in but to make it drive away its own support. Looks like it just might be working. And Che, do you think they might have read Che? They used to, my daughter the Lt. has the copy they gave me at NIOTC.

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 18:13:25 -0600

Only tat that'd work on me would be "Hey, Kids! Connect the Scars and See What Sammy Spider Made!"

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 13:25:05 -0600

At the time, I couldn't think of anything that looked better as it sagged and drooped. So I passed on the tat.

Oh .... and the fact that I was 30 DM's short. LOL

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 12:41:13 -0600

Foxfier:

Yikes! That IS a bit scary. I don't recall anything like that done when I was in. Of course, I think about the only tattoo I could ever bring myself to get would be the crossed cannons on my left arm. Never went through with it.

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 12:17:02 -0600

BillT-
I've seen Fox News listed as alternative media, yes. For political reasons, as best I can tell.

JamesLee-
The only reason I don't have a tattoo at the moment is because when I was in the middle of researching exactly what I'd want to have permanently on my body, my workspace got a USN directive with pictures that basically made anything obviously Catholic or Celtic be considered "hate" related, and thus not allowed.
Apparently related to MS-13 and neo-Norse skin heads using the symbols.
When I couldn't use Celtic knotwork, crucifixes, eye motifs or Latin inscriptions, I was pretty much out of anything I'm confident in keeping my entire life.
The borderline-psychotic search for "indicators" of unacceptable stuff isn't anything new.

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 11:31:17 -0600

alternative media: A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

So, in that it differs radically by presenting *both* sides of most political issues (and stories), Fox News is now officially "alternative media"?

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 10:12:41 -0600

One the surface, I sort of agree here on what all these "reports" are, just background, setting the stage, etc, and I TRY not to get too worked up about them.

The paranoid side of me, though, tends to bristle just a tad at some of the generalizations, particularly in the "Right Wing" report. While, for example, people supporting Third Party candidates or displaying the Live Free Or Die emblems can indeed be more prone to commit criminal acts, there are probably ten times as many who would never even consider it. There just seemed to be, in that one at least, a degree or two of demonizing the political opposition.

Some of the critics of the RW DHS report noted the timing of the release, and apparent rush to get it out, suggesting it was done so to coincide with the Tea Parties. While I don't know one way or the other about that, if some saw that, and may have decided "hmm, maybe I better NOT show up after work on Tuesday, sounds like there might be trouble." If that was the motivation, I would wonder how much it may have suppressed turnout; 10%? 25%? 50%? In any case, the lower the turnout of just 'regular' folks would bring more emphasis to the 'nuts' that DID attend, thereby making it easier to dismiss the whole operation.

As I asked a friend the other evening over BBQ and beers, at what point am I NOT sounding like a survivalist freak and seeing a genuine threat to our way of life? Not an easy line to determine, and will likely be at different points for everyone.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 10:05:57 -0600

Honestly, I don't think so Rivrdog. I really think the lexicon for Islamic extremism is either out there as a separate document, or in preparation as a separate document - if it wasn't, I don't think the caveat would have been made. I suspect it's a substantial document in and of itself, and they didn't want to conflate the two.

The good thing about the lexicon being out there is that it does give everybody a point of departure to discuss the HLD view of the domestic scene that the lexicon lays out. And I also believe most of these documents were under preparation or would have been produced under the previous administration, too.

The bad side is... it's just a dictionary. Far more important are the other documents that we've seen.

I think the documents that we've seen thus far have been essentially executive summaries, and that the real documents, which hopefully give greater detail and better context, are under higher levels of classification.

Of course, the problem with that is that many, if not most, "Joe Average" LEOs are only going to read the exec summaries, and won't get the data with higher classifications which might do a much better job of providing context.

But without a window into that, we can't say. And, of course, the Catch 22 for me would apply - were I to get access to that data (and I might be able to legitimately do so) then my confidentiality agreements would forbid me from talking about it, even if it was to the advantage of the government to talk about them.

And I would honor those agreements. But that's just bravado, since I do not have, nor am I looking to obtain, the classified documents.

If someone has them, please don't send them to me, as I don't have the legitimate need to know and would be compelled to report the reciept of the documents, and you'd get my computer confiscated and wiped, too. That would *really* tick me off.

Comment from Rivrdog on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 09:52:27 -0600

So, does publishing this Lexicon without ANY mention of islamic extremism give any wannabe-censors the chops to cut off any briefer (such as yourself, Major) who might want to bring up the subject, or any honest LEO Intel guy (I'm loosely associated with that group) who might want to raise such an alarm?

There are plenty of those wannabe-censors in the Obama Administration (reference: the Swine Flu name change). I guess that the only question yet to answer is just how high a censor will pick up on this Lexicon.

Comment from Chris on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 09:32:58 -0600

It sure seems that this Administration is going out of it's way to avoid anything that denounces Islam. Almost as if the guy in charge were some kid of Muslim or something.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 09:26:35 -0600

While their report on Left Wing extremism was pretty mild, I'll reserve full judgement until we get a chance to see the reports of domestic Islamic extremism before I make a full assessment.

And that, of course, will rely on them to continue to have people who will defy the security markings.

in fact, I wouldn't be shocked to find that some of the more sensitive ones get someting other than FOUO to make them less likely to get released into the wild.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-04

Mon, 04 May 2009 08:26:06 -0600

The main "domestic" terrorists I worry most about are not right-wing militia but those "home-grown" Muslim jihadist groups like we've seen targeting Ft. Dix and other places here in the US.

The fact that the Obama administration feels more threatened by "right-wing" groups tells us just how "left-wing" they are.