
Why a top terrorism analyst thinks US government surveillance has gone too far - teawithcarl
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/brian_jenkins_fears_nsa_overreach_a_top_terrorism_expert_thinks_government.html
======
btilly
He wonders why this is covert when all smart terrorists know it already.

I'll play Devil's advocate and answer that. To the extent that the USA
publicizes what it does, people in other countries around the world will get
concerned and develop alternatives that are not subject to US jurisdiction.
Alternatives developed for legitimate reasons by non-criminals then provide
options for terrorists to use that are hard for US authorities to monitor.

Let me give a specific example. Around the world, terrorists are forced to use
sites like Facebook to promote their views because that is where they will
find the people that they want to convince. They take precautions, but they
are still forced to use the tool, and it is still easy for them to slip up and
get caught.

If, however, distrust of the USA had pushed the people that they want to
convince to social networks based outside of the USA, then the exact same
terrorists could use those networks in the exact same ways and it would be
much harder for the US to capitalize on those inevitable small mistakes.

~~~
EliRivers
I note also that there are many, many more stupid terrorists than smart
terrorists. Likewise criminals.

~~~
btilly
The existence of stupid terrorists is a nuisance in the grand scheme of
things. The inspiration for the level of our efforts is fear of something on
the scale of 9/11..or bigger.

There are people with the funding, means, and motivation to do something like
deliver a fully weaponized anthrax bomb in NYC or Washington, DC. A large
portion of our intelligence efforts are devoted to making sure that they do
not succeed.

~~~
dublinben
If those people really exist with the motivation and means to do that, why
haven't they done so? US Intelligence is clearly not perfect, as we saw in
Boston.

~~~
btilly
First, existence proof. Do you think that al qaeda under Osama bin Laden
didn't have the money, means, and motivation to have done something like that?
If you think that, you should look into the situation at the time, Osama was
from one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia, had a network that extended
around the world, etc, etc, etc.

Now why did he opt for planes over mass destruction? I don't have a window
into his mind, but I can make some reasonable guesses.

First, he was looking for great visuals, and he got that. Killing 100k people
with anthrax would have done more damage, but would not have the visuals of
seeing an airplane disappear into a building and explode out the other end.

The second has to be concern for the US response. He took out high priority
targets that struck at the heart of American power without undue casualties.
He got multiple wars, and a worldwide manhunt for anyone in his network. If he
had inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties, do you think that the USA
would have held back on all out war? (Potentially including nukes, a draft,
etc.)

A third is that the USA has been proactively identifying ways in which he
could actually acquire those things, and blocking them. For instance look at
the efforts we took to help secure Russian nuclear materials.

~~~
bcoates
Alternate theory: al-Qaeda used planes because planes exist here in the real
world, and weaponized Anthrax bombs that can kill 100,000 people don't.

~~~
btilly
The effectiveness of biological warfare lead to major world powers
accumulating hundreds of tons of such weapons, considering what would happen
if they used them, then signing
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention)
and destroying them. (It is, admittedly, easier to give up one "ultimate
weapon" when you retain your supplies of another. And in warfare there is no
question that nuclear bombs are more useful than biological weapons because
they act immediately.)

The capacity to create them again exists and takes little resources in theory.
Doing it effectively and actually having it work the first time you try is
another story. There is no question that al qaeda can find people who could
try, but the probability of success is a different story.

------
yoster
As long as I can tell a cop to go fuck themselves without being arrested, I
don't feel oppressed.

~~~
gasull
Good luck doing that in the US.

~~~
yoster
I have done that plenty of times. As long as you do it where there are
witnesses and you don't do anything else...

