Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 02:25 AM

so...
If the Los Angeles Times published an article about how Pillsbury was coming out with a great new product, and listed the ingredients of that product, how would you expect Pillsbury to react? You give away a competetive advantage to every baking company on the planet.
Sure, Hostess could easily do the research to figure out what the product is made of, but they would have to do the research themselves. Nobody is giving it to them, and definitely not before it hits the shelves. You might find a lawsuit attached in the mail...
The thing that worries me, is that you don't see that this kind of 'reporting' could potentially cost your fellow Americans' lives. This is where ethics comes into play. If the Los Angeles Times is too blind to see that, then maybe they should be labelled by the President as a threat to national security.
It is pretty simple to me.

Posted by: Jimmy at December 24, 2008 01:49 PM

I played Maple Story for two years, only this number, bring me is happy, although it spent me a lot of maple mesos, happy lost, I would like to how to do. When I see that prompted the password is wrong, my tears down the keyboard. I told myself that it is system question; I can be one of the landings. I know that it is impossible. My number is lost in this way, after I no longer have, I lost it is forever.

Posted by: maple mesos at August 12, 2008 12:08 AM

The friend took me to the game, but she own was leaving the game. A person to game is boring, every day, I only know to upgrade and earn ro zeny. I can not sad dot this mess of feelings and moving. Once, the two boys for me quarreled utterly, until I leaved and tool sad. Later, I found a boy to married, I think perhaps all this to change, and I pray to become a reality, a few days after he disappeared. A person was playing a marriage number, what would it have taken place.

Posted by: ro zeny at August 12, 2008 12:06 AM

Three years ago, after friends introduced, I played the Rappelz game. At that time, I dazed and confused, I like to go my own way, I have a lot of rappelz rupees, but I became the most evil villains in the game. Until I encountered her, I found the meaning of survival.

Posted by: rappelz rupees at August 12, 2008 12:02 AM

I really cry powerless, you said you put together training, and earned a lot of rohan online crone, you will protect me. I was killed; I was bullied by other people. I think, no matter, after my husband will double back here again. You know you said that the phrase, how sad I am, my tears was disappointing down. That day I said I want to leave, you said nothing. You know how I think you can retain me. But you just said you send text messages to you over time. I really collapse, I left angry.

Posted by: rohan crone at August 11, 2008 11:58 PM

I am an ordinary online game enthusiast. January, I walked inside into a new world called RF. In this new world inside, I find the feeling that all games there have never had. I also the first time spent money in the online to buy RF gold. I would like to put the feeling of the article inside, thank all the friends in RF, and wish you happy.

Posted by: rf gold at August 11, 2008 11:55 PM

Unwittingly, I now have to play Gaia more than three years, during the six months I have not played, it is because the equipment and gaia gold stolen. I am a hot personality, impulses, its own people, had been a game of the girls to beat. She brought me happy, but also brought troubles to me.

Posted by: gaia gold at August 11, 2008 11:52 PM

I played the Goonzu game for a few months, my heart had too many feelings, and this game is playing what in the end, playing goonzu gold or playing the feelings.

Posted by: goonzu gold at August 11, 2008 11:49 PM

My negative, as my boss’s brother was very sad. He said venting to find out the game we play games together, together fight monster, how to kill on how to kill. Later, we played the GuildWars game, my brother helped me apply a number, and she also bought some GW gold to me. Choose the name, I think a long time, in order to no longer immerse in the lovelorn, so I need to find individuals to love me, want to permanently, I hope that it is no longer the past fireworks fleeting. Finally, I choose love me 9 long time as my name. Brother saw and laughed; he said he hoped I will be happy. He let me go to play, beware of being cheated, do not give other people my phone and QQ.

Posted by: gw gold at August 11, 2008 11:46 PM

Players can specialize in a skill, but also can practice all the skills. You must buy potbs Doubloon to prepare for rainy day.

Posted by: buy potbs Doubloon at August 5, 2008 11:55 PM

When their Daguai no ability to make money when you can buy Maple mesos. Later games to a new BOSS, Puchu a lot of things, because why did not go to school, the students later I have been playing this game until the most senior.

Posted by: Maple mesos at August 5, 2008 11:54 PM

rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 3, 2008 10:41 PM

wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
powerleveling wow
powerleveling wow
cheap wow power leveling
Maple Story mesos
MapleStory mesos
ms mesos
mesos
SilkRoad Gold
SRO Gold
eq2 plat
eq2 gold
eq2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 gold
EverQuest 2 plat
lotro gold
lotr gold
Lord of the Rings online Gold
Rolex Replica
Replica Rolex

Posted by: 3f3f3f3 at June 2, 2008 09:38 PM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 01:02 AM

They prefer to buy small numbers of big sexy war machines. The last line of the post about China being short sighted is beyond ridiulous (Five Year Plan), no country is more short sighted than the US. East vs West philosophy.

Posted by: runescape gold at April 7, 2008 02:10 AM

I wish you could ride with me for the rest of my deployment.. And then you can judge if you thought you should have written the article. And as far as the American Public needing to know where the money is spent... WTF? Do we as soldiers not count as the American public. I'm pretty sure that if that kind of money isn't being spent on new technology for IED defeat, we will be the first to know. It's not like us as soldiers are going to divide up the money.. I haven't met a rich soldier yet. Thanks PAL. Why don't you and Sean Penn come on back. We'd love to have ya.

Live (no thanks to you) from Iraq.

Posted by: SOLDIERBOB at November 6, 2007 03:50 PM

Words are very powerful in war. Particularly to the enemy that least understands them. Google and the Dept. of Defense both are on the same page in that they do not mince words.

Posted by: Robert Sutterfield at May 14, 2007 10:18 PM

It would seem all media & news coverage tends to down play the will of the troops & teams comitted to action . I would think there is great thought given to any release , media excluded . As far as any usable defense against IED , I am sure the one considered will never reach the field , since the enemy was well informed . You are as good as Hanoi Jane .

Posted by: Don at January 2, 2007 04:19 PM

EA is correct.

Posted by: Rocks at November 6, 2006 03:33 AM

Sir/Ma'am,
I think the point many want to make here isn't whether or not the technology is available via Google or any other browser. But how much time must be expended to locate the bits and pieces and consolidate them into something one might be able to use to correlate into a weapon or countermeasure.

You are absolutely correct, most, if not all, if not even more can be found out there. But don't extrapolate a single point in this much larger picture. There are many factors that set context. Does the insurgent have connectivity to this data, does s/he have the means to locate it, is s/he savvy enough to do any of this. I think the fear is that you're doing the data collection, analysis and reporting for them. Which again, adds up to a significant time savings.

I'm no expert; yes, I have served in more than one war and in more than one branch. After my 23 years of active and reserve duty I retired and went on to work for a contractor. Although my experience ranges from jumping out of helicopters to running quarter billion dollar software companies at the end of the day I'm just another American who thinks he knows just a little more than the next guy. So I guess my two cents is just that, two cents.

Nonetheless, I do thank you for alowing me the opportunity to share my personal opinion.
Peace!

Posted by: careermilitary at November 5, 2006 10:00 AM

just simple shut your mouth and dont write about what we are doing or may do.....

Posted by: jerry at May 12, 2006 02:28 PM

Developing blocking technology based on vague references is very viable to an engineer. We just need a vague notion from our customers which is all most have to develop new products for them.

Posted by: jerry at March 28, 2006 04:21 PM

Duh, "What goes around, comes around". Ivan helped the VC, We helped the Afghans, now Ivan helps the Iraqis! High tech IEDs from low tech uneducated Iraqi good old boys, what's wrong with this picture?? Kind of like the test pilot acrobatic flying of the terrorists with a year of pilot training on 9-11. I smell the bad breath of the coward Mossad, CIA or British SAS and maybe even Russian Spetnez it's to complicated for anyone else and each of these groups would also profit from the IEDs damage! "Follow the Money"
Peace. Jaye

Posted by: Jaye at March 20, 2006 08:31 PM

>> Noah; you are F.O.S. these new seismic, pressure sensitive and acoustic IEDs are state of the art and beyond any thing seen before. That's why we need new technology to find and destroy them you D.A. civilian!

I am vastly amused. If someone is testing advanced technology detonators against US troops, someone is living dangerously and inviting discreet if ferocious retaliation. I don't suppose an electronic lab blowing up in Pakistan or Eastern Europe would necessarily make the news . . .

It also wouldn't be anything new. As I recall, both the United States and Russia sold advanced military technologies to both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, using their battlefield as a test bed.

What goes around, comes around.

Oh, and as for "advanced," I seem to recall open-source intel regarding Russia using acoustic and seismic sensors back in the 1970s . . . and any decent Radio Shack contains the parts one would need, even if you have to take apart consumer electronics now and again.

Posted by: Andrew at March 20, 2006 02:44 PM

And except for Military, Government or Police temporarily outlaw all cellphones in Iraq, because they are used to detonate the IEDs! Peace. Jaye

Posted by: Jaye at March 18, 2006 06:15 PM

On what the enemy posted on the Internet:

+++++++++++++++

http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications157306&Category=publications&Subcategory=0

Strategies to Circumvent the Joint IED Neutralizer Posted to Jihadist Forums
By SITE Institute
March 17, 2006

A message posted to jihadist forums announced the American Army’s intention to deploy Joint IED Neutralizers (JINs) in Iraq as a means to reduce the risk of the threat posed by roadside improvised explosive devices. The author highlights the physics of the weapons ability and lists a series of seven methods that the mujahideen may use to circumvent the JIN’s function, including making the mines “very explosive,” place the mine beside a large quantity of scrap or merely attack the JIN itself because it “seems less reinforced”.

Members of one of the forums in which they message was posted respond that the mujahideen should be notified of the device and the strategies, and further, another suggests that RPG-7 launchers should be used to eliminate the JIN.

A translation of the message postings is provided to our Intel Service members.

Posted by: Allen Thomson at March 18, 2006 03:25 PM

> cui bono?

I think I have a hypothesis, or at least a conspiracy theory, for how the implicit bit about the Ionatron IED zapper got into Bush's speech last Monday. As we recall, the line is that five days after a story about the device appeared in the LAT on 12 Feb, the enemy had posted countermeasures to it on the Internet.

Well, it also turns out that in a hearing on 14 Feb, Senator Clinton used the LAT article as a hook for taking the Army to task for dragging their heels on protecting the troops against IEDs. Seconded in the same hearing by Senator Kennedy.

And then on 15 Feb, also citing the LAT article, Senator Boxer wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Army expressing the same concern.

So, if people(*) in the White House saw Senators Clinton, Kennedy and Boxer using the LAT story to raise the possiblity that the Administration is being negligent in protecting our troops, what would they do? Might a bit of jiu-jitsu turning the tables on the senators by showing how the evil liberal MSM are endangering our troops by giving secrets to the enemy come to mind?

Clinton/Kennedy: http://tinyurl.com/pae43

Boxer: http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=251604

(*) Many of whom might have the initials K.R.

Posted by: Allen Thomson at March 18, 2006 01:50 PM

We are still losing good GIs to these IEDs. High tech IEDs from low tech uneducated Iraqi good old boys, what's wrong with this picture?? Kind of like the test pilot acrobatic flying of the terrorists with a year of pilot training on 9-11. I smell the bad breath of the coward Mossad, CIA or British SAS and maybe even Russian Spetnez it's to complicated for anyone else and each of these groups would also profit from the IEDs damage!
Peace. Jaye

Posted by: Jaye at March 18, 2006 01:32 PM

This is what I get for not paying attention. It turns out that Ionatron, the company that built the IED zapper that Bush was apparently talking about, has been the subject of much past attention by defensetech.org and others. (CIA, shady money, shady corporate connections, etc. Should make a great movie.)

I guess my question about Ionatron's implicit appearance in Bush's speech is now more or less, cui bono? Who got to his speechwriters and for what purpose?

Note that as of this writing late in the afternoon of 17 March 2006, Ionatron's stock (IOTN) has not suffered much from the relevation that the enemy has developed countermeasures to the zapper.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=IOTN

Posted by: Allen Thomson at March 17, 2006 04:21 PM

you've got to be kidding me. america's enemy? these are improvised explosive devices ... they can't stand up and fight us so they deploy this shit, you covering this doesn't mean shit to that.

wtf

pardon my french.

Posted by: ben at March 17, 2006 03:05 PM

TG:

You said, "The straw that breaks the camel's back does not have to be that all the information is in the same place, article, or conversation at once...its the bits and pieces of information that can be pulled together to form the 'big picture' that gets a lot of people killed."

I hear that. But what's the solution, then? Stop talking about any military op or tech, at any time, because some shred of it might conceivably get tied together by an Al Qaeda snoop some day?

I’ve got a different approach. It’s based on some guidelines laid out during my EOD embed. But I think they're more or less universally applicable.

Doctrine -- "soldiers uses plastic explosive charges to detonate IEDs" is fine. Details of TTPs -- "soldier place the charges precise of this particular part of the bomb, at such-and-such angle" -- is not. That's while I'll talk about radio frequency jammers being employed, for example, but I won't give out their ranges.

Makes sense? Agree? Disagree?

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at March 17, 2006 02:00 PM

TG,

Law of Logical Argument:
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by: BK at March 17, 2006 01:46 PM

Odd, I don't recall posting the above. If it was six hours ago, I must've been asleep, or there's another Charles on the loose.

Posted by: Charles at March 17, 2006 09:30 AM

On The enemy is me: So if you are told to shut up then, shut up and be happy.

Posted by: Charles at March 17, 2006 03:05 AM

Noah; you are F.O.S. these new seismic, pressure sensitive and acoustic IEDs are state of the art and beyond any thing seen before. That's why we need new technology to find and destroy them you D.A. civilian!

Posted by: Jaye at March 16, 2006 08:03 PM

NMS,

You're probably right regarding the "liberal media" comment...but I never mentioned anything about Bush or his administration. I'm neither pro or con when it comes to politics or politicians.

I just get/got tired of working hard and kicking ass all day and then watching/listening/reading comments from people who claim to be experts but have no real-world experience. One particular news media actually used a Novelist to make comments about what caused the crash of a C-130. The "expert" had never even flown on a military aircraft and had no training/education in aerospace of any kind!!

Experience and history have proven many times that the bad-guy has the capability to hear-all and read-all in its quest for information. The straw that breaks the camel's back does not have to be that all the information is in the same place, article, or conversation at once...its the bits and pieces of information that can be pulled together to form the "big picture" that gets a lot of people killed.

Thanks,
TG

Posted by: T at March 16, 2006 05:09 PM

John: Great to hear from you. Thanks for stopping by. But cheerleading for "effective IEDs?" That's over the line, man. Way over. You may disagree with the Bush Administration's decision to get into this fight. But those young men and women over in Iraq didn't make that call. Don't offer them up as sacrifices on someone else's altar.

Alan: Great point on the Osama cellphone charge. I'm sensing a pattern here!

Jaye: You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, I'm sorry. These IEDs are mostly *low* tech, not high.

TG: I'm tired of the same, worn-out talking point, that any crtical analysis whatsoever of the Bush Administration is somehow evidence of "liberal media" bias.

If you've got comments to add from your combat experience (and I assume you have some, from your note), then chime in. We'd all love to hear from you. But doing the Rush Limbaugh media bias shuffle? That dance went out a long time ago, brother.

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at March 16, 2006 11:35 AM

I think all those folks with "boys' in the field should take down the names of 'imbedded' paper warroirs who post dangerous material and send same to their "boys'. That way the troops can know ALL about the camera jockey riding along with them. Can all share the joke.

Posted by: Guran Walker at March 16, 2006 08:31 AM

I'm disappointed that this site now sounds like it has become another place for typical, liberal media complaint forum with most comments coming from people with no ground combat experience. Just because someone has gone to SWA for a few days or a couple of weeks does not make you an expert. Try living and working in a combat zone (tents and all) 24/7 for 365 days or more, then you may consider making serious KNOWLEDGEABLE comments....instead of just ranting.

Posted by: TG at March 16, 2006 08:23 AM

Lol. How about they shut up and figure out how to circumvent "landmines" before they whine about US citizens talking about IED's on the internet. Or if they care so much about it, shutdown international internet traffic. Not like we are experts. Not like we are posting complete IED plans (which falls under freedom of the press anyways) and is IN NO WAY ILLEGAL TO EVEN POST PLANS FOR EXPLOSIVES OR IED MANUFACTURING to begin with. I can see how they would nicely ask someone from doing so (but they cant do anything about it BUT ask nicely, and risk making themselves look like unpatriotic unconstituional promoting shittards by supressing our constitutional freedoms), but all people here talk about could hardly aid anyone in building IED's or countermeasures to US technology. And if US anti ied technology can be circumvented by common sense rudimentary knowledge obtained here from DefenseTech posters, the anti ied technology is a joke and wasnt worth trying to use or keep anyways.

What a bunch of tightass shitheads. Tell them to stop driving around Iraq in their tin cans like an armored vehicle is some ULTRA KICKASS TECHNOLOGY that should deflect all known forms of explosives and projectiles. God forbid they ever have to fight a ground war where they have guided anti vehicular weapons, IED's, and a stalemated air war. They would probably shut down the internet, TV, and force us to stay in our homes and use sign language not to mention NUKING everything.

They need to use their heads instead and not care about us using high school educational level discussion on IED as "aiding the enemy in advancing IED technology". I think they seriously underestimate their enemies if they think anything that has been posted here could aid them.

They should start with firing their wannabee anti IED taskforce generals that wouldnt know how to stop IED's or other implements of WAR with any more logic then a 14 year old. That would be a good first step.

If all they have is katyusha rockets, IED's, and mortars and small arms then that seems pretty simple to circumvent. How riding aorund in HUMVEES and sending Armored Vehicles in big columns up and down the country was a good idea I have no idea. I guess we got to kill alot of civilians in all the shooting. I guess our intelligence agencies are too lazy and impatient to flush out the enemies in other ways (like actually *gasp* gathering intel). I guess it is imperative we invaded in such a short time span, I guess it is imperative to try and kill as many of the bad guys as possible, even if that involves sending out bait patrols.

BUt some General will read this and laugh and justify all tactics, not to mention chastize everything that we have said as amateur, lacking all sense, stupid, and impractical.

Posted by: jtw at March 15, 2006 11:03 PM

The reason the "enemy" is blowing up "our boys" is because our boys invaded their country without provocation, and in violation of international law. America is in the wrong here. Most people don't have the guts to say so.

We can hardly complain about the kill ratio -- we're killing a dozen to a hundred of them for every one of "our boys" they get. But here's Bush and a kurnel whining about the First Amendment. (We already knew those two weren't fighting to protect democracy and the constitution.)

If effective IEDs convince "our boys" to stay the hell out of the Middle East, that's a good thing.
Much better than the world that would result if the US Army figured out how to go back to pushing buttons to murder any real or imagined "enemy" without risking their own lives.

Bravo, Noah. Tell us more.

PS: Building schools and hospitals? Don't make me laugh. We blew up the perfectly good ones that were already there -- along with the people in 'em .

Posted by: John Gilmore at March 15, 2006 10:04 PM

I feel that pooh pooing President Bush's comments about giving the enemy information is wrong. This is serious business, people are dying.

Lets not help the enemy to kill us.

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 08:34 PM

High tech IEDs from low tech uneducated Iraqi good old boys, what's wrong with this picture?? Kind of like the test pilot aerobatic flying of the terrorists with a year of pilot training on 9-11. I smell the bad breath of the coward Mossad, CIA or British SAS!
Peace. Jaye

Posted by: Jaye at March 15, 2006 07:45 PM

yeah. this is exactly the problem with any large organization, corporate or government. there are no secrets left. the only motivation behind the attempt to censor journalists is censorship. instead of this the government (and in other cases corporations) should encourage research by making information available and then make use of that research.

the cold hard fact is that the government is in the business of managing public opinion, nothing more. despite family (and often personal) investments related to their positions, the only motive for office holders should be what is best for the american people. instead, all government officials rely on 'no news but good news' to keep their posts.

blaming the media is a regular tactic that has resulted in the decimation of any hope for journalistic integrity. blame the reporter and avoid responsibility for the topic being reported. obviously any new information on detecting and disarming improvised explosives is vital to saving both the lives of american soldiers and the lives of civillians in the area.

according to this article instead of asking for that support the united states is demanding voluntary ignorance from anyone qualified to comment and from anyone concerned enough to want more information.

as to most of the information in the 2005 wired article being classified i do not agree. the cellphone or garage door opener technology belongs to a company, not to a government. the only piece of the article i could see as objectionable from a strategic standpoint would be the disclosure of the ping project, simply because it allows for the predictability of where those units will focus their attention. so, how does the reporter get that information? not the reporter's fault is it? journalistic responsibility says to print it. if you don't want to see it in print don't tell a reporter.

ignoring the problem won't make it go away. if you want information on the best ways to stop or intercept signals and that information isn't available, you need to either figure out how or find someone else who can. there are hundreds of thousands of hackers worldwide who make their own solutions to just about any problem with commercial technology. ask them. pretty much what the article did.

the response from the president (third hand reference now) and pentagon which requested everyone should stop and be stupid shows two things. one, they are not asking for help. two, they live in a secluded dream world where people do what they are told.

somehow, this makes me sad and a little angry. i don't like the idea of people dying. i also don't like the government spending billions of dollars and then claiming that any available information about it would compromise our security.

Posted by: no at March 15, 2006 05:57 PM

Lets not fool ourselves, were not fighting a bunch of primative tribesmen, these guys already understand basic science. You didn't give them anything to work with.
As for new coverage I have no problem finding so positive and so called negitive everyday. In fact I seek both sides out so I can't get a better idea.

Posted by: Joseph at March 15, 2006 05:15 PM

Reader TH: "Per: *The Enemy is Me* -- Why do you hate freedom?"

Reader SL: "Of course you're the enemy. We're all the enemy. Only the "good guys" aren't the enemy. And even they can become the enemy if they disagree for one second with the Politburo (see: every cabinet member from W Term 1)."

Reader TP: "After reading the first article below on "the
Enemy is Me", I cannot believe the author is
serious. Historians who specialize in military
will tell you and those in command of even
small military forces will tell you that
information about the enemy is vital to winning.
History is full of stories about smaller forces
defeating larger forces because of information obtained to defeat the enemy.

The public does not have a right to know when
military security is vital to soldiers and
sailors lives. The news media is very desperate
to print negative things which will get a public
reaction at the cost of problems to others.

We won WWII because the reporters covering the
war were responsible. Did the public have a right
to know that Eisenhower was preparing for the
invasion of Normandy or the invasion of Iwo Jima?

I find it interesting listening to the CNN and
hearing about all the problems in Iraq. Granted
there are problems, but one never hears about the
schools and hospitals being built and other
reconstruction. . I only hear those stories from
the many returning servicemen who completed their tour of duty in Iraq.

I happen to agree with Bush on the security
issue. I find it disturbing that reporters find
it necessary to call thing laughable and attempt
to degrade a person. They usually have an
inherent bias and have a cause to push on other
people. What happened to honest unbiased
reporting? I am tried of negativity in the news
just to preserve reporters jobs and make money."

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at March 15, 2006 03:56 PM

It would be very interesting to locate the jihadist Web sites and see what countermeasure they actually came up with; I suspect it might have been, "Shoot the golf cart-like thing." If anybody here can Google in Arabic, it might be worth a bit of time to try to track it down.

I note that what Bush said is isomorphic to the bin Laden satellite phone story. The format is robust and dependable.

The zapper technology, BTW, is described at www.ionatron.net

Posted by: Allen Thomson at March 15, 2006 02:55 PM

Well, this mentality definitely demonstrates why the US is no longer a competing force in the world of technology (save a few ‘corporate’’ players); The idea now is that we should ‘lock-up’ all technology that could be used as a weapon. With this mentality we would not have the internet of today or even the personal computers of today.

As a Technologist I have witnessed the degradation of technology in our country and am saddened to see that the free-thinking and free-mindsets are vanishing.

If we are to remain free, then we must be free.

The idea that ‘freedom is not free’ applies here; We must be willing to put aside fears of the ‘boogie man’ to ensure that there is a free US tomorrow for our children’s sake.

Posted by: Mike T. at March 15, 2006 02:51 PM

Good Morning Noah,

In regard to publishing information that might do harm to U.S. war efforts or put U.S. Military personal in danger, I have'nt seen it yet here Noah.

In particular IED's, it appears from information in the mainstream media, The Los Angeles Times for example is way ahead of what I see here, Defense Tech is being rather selective and conservative in what is posted.

As Commented before the only people who find this information new a distrubing are President Bush, Sec. of Defence Rumsfeld and the sorry a** Generals and Admirals who are running this war from their bu**s in Washington and McDill.

A god read for those of you who still think this cast of clowns can run a war is the just released book "Cobra II". The conflict beween Gereral's Frank and Wallace is to say the least is interesting.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 15, 2006 02:49 PM

"So, if you know that the information that you published might result in the death of American soldiers, are you justified in publishing it by the public's "right to know"?"

This is the common false misinformation that is being perpetuated by people like President Bush. Keeping information from the public costs more lives than keeping government open and accountable.

A story about anti-IED technology - especially when the information was NOT from a leak, but rather from open information sources - is in no way more dangerous to American soldiers than is a totalitarian government hell-bent on secrecy not for national security, but to cover their own asses.

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 02:02 PM

Bob:

Fair question. If I was "sure that if the likelihood of that information being used by the enemy [was] quite high," I wouldn't run with it. If I "knew that the death of American soldiers was a certainty," I wouldn't run with it, for sure.

However, I don't think my reporting on counter-IED techs, or the LA Times', gets anywhere near that line.

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at March 15, 2006 11:39 AM

So, if you know that the information that you published might result in the death of American soldiers, are you justified in publishing it by the public's "right to know"?

What if you were sure that if the likelihood of that information being used by the enemy were quite high? What if you knew that the death of American soldiers was a certainty? I am just trying to gauge just how important is the public's "right to know" in this instance.

Posted by: Bob at March 15, 2006 11:33 AM

"Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet."

This is a completely standard anti-leak morality tale of a sort that has been heard many times before. The format is as predictable as many of the urban legends that circulate in e-mail.

Like many ULs, the content is at first glance believable, even if somewhat dependent on post hoc reasoning. It's only if and after you look at the details that their bogusness appears. (And, to be fair, in a few cases there remains some possibility of a real causal connection between publishing information and a harmful consequence.)

Happy Sunshine Week, by the way.

Posted by: SecreTX at March 15, 2006 11:26 AM

Back in the Seventies, a Swedish film crew received permits to film a TV documentary about life in the Soviet Union. They would follow around a typical family of Soviet workers for a few days, living their daily routine. They had all the proper documentation and so on and were all set to begin filming in the family's little apartment when the police burst in and ordered them to stop filming.

As they began arguing with the police, they became aware that they hadn't really broken any rules, but the local party officials that gave them permission had made a mistake. The apartment had a window that looked out onto a wall. Beyond the wall was a defense plant. They couldn't see anything beyond the wall (it was just a wall) but the fact that there was a defense plant beyond it made the wall a state secret. They couldn't film there under any circumstances.

Now the Russians shelled out about twenty percent of their GDP for years for defense and never really had any idea what they were getting for it. That's what totalitarianism is. You give the state all the power and hope they know what they're doing. In a democracy, you don't have blind faith in the government. You want to know what they're up to. You want details. You want to see receipts.

If the colonel doesn't like it, he can join a different army. He had civics classes in high school like the rest of us; he knew the score when he enlisted. No matter what people might say, we're not putting the colonel at a disadvantage. After all, the Soviet Union is gone, and we're still here.

Don't take it too hard. Things aren't going well in Iraq and the people responsible are looking for someone to blame. I blame the civilian leadership, not the military, but no one is going to admit they screwed up. And, at the end of the day, it's people, not technology, that are at the heart of the problem. This is the lesson of the Iraq War, which is, not surprisingly, the same lesson as all the other wars: the human element remains decisive.

Posted by: James at March 15, 2006 10:06 AM

I forgot to turn on comments for this story, so reader EA sent this to me directly...

First, I admire your commitment and professionalism--and your courage. Traveling to Iraq and riding along with the bomb squads is not something I think I would have the courage to do. Of course, over thirty years ago during my active service days, I'd probably have jumped at the chance. I was invulnerable then.

I have read extensively on military history and technology since I was twelve years old, but ten years in the Navy taught me the difference between what I read in open sources and reality. Sometimes, for instance, Jane's Fighting Ships would get it ridiculously wrong. In other instances, Jane's reported facts which I was forbidden to discuss because of the classified nature of the information. So I have learned to assume that I will likely never get accurate or complete information from open sources.

This is a good thing. Despite my fascination with military history, tactics and technology--I read your web site after all--I am concerned that published information will place our troops in danger. I would gladly confine my reading to science fiction if I knew that this would insure our enemies were held in complete ignorance of my countries military capabilities.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. In a democratic society, the people have a right to know something about the programs they are asked to finance. The people must also retain oversight of military programs, lest they go wildly astray and waste lives as well as money. We are also justifiably proud of our men and women in uniform, and want to read about them and about the tools we provide to them to do their jobs. The recruiting potential of such things as port visits and air shows is also enormous.

So, we try to find a balance between the public's right to know and the absolutely essential needs of operational security and the secrecy of weapons systems performance. I think I know you well enough from your posts to believe that you would never knowingly disclose classified information, or even unclassified information that might jeopardize lives. But don't be too hard on that U.S. Colonel in Baghdad. As an American who cares about the lives of our troops, as I know you do as well, I expect--in fact demand--that he err on the side of caution. He probably knows better than you or I where the line should be drawn.

Keep up the good work, Noah.

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at March 15, 2006 08:52 AM