thanks.

Posted by: 森下悠里 at July 16, 2008 07:33 PM

One anonymous reader says this about the CIA/NSA item...

That reference was to the Agency's POLICE force, not the actual intel personnel. These are the guys that guard the respective campuses/facilities, and I bet that previously there was some arcane loophole that prevented them from making arrests.

Daniel Brian of POGO goes a little off the reservation when he says that it "appears...to grant to CIA security personnel powers that have little to do with the primary mission of 'executive protection,' and potentially creates a pretext for use or abuse of these powers for the purposes of general domestic law enforcement -- something no element of the CIA has ever been empowered to perform..."

First off the bill's reference is not about 'executive protection' but 'protective functions'. To make the leap and imply that CIA agents are going to be running around the country and arresting people is laughable. This is simply about the small Police force that guards both agencies. For instance, it is a felony (I believe) to jump the fence at a federal installation. Perhaps in the past they could only hold such a violator until someone else showed up to arrest them. Now the Police force can make a legitimate arrest.

But to imply that we should now be wary of the CIA breaking down our doors is akin to saying we should be fearful of the possible abuse of police powers by Senators and Congressmen if the Capitol Police had just been given some new power.

Obviously it is the Capitol Police who wield the police powers, not the Congress-critters, and thus it will be with this story. Mr Brian is transferring the powers of the protectors onto the protected. It will be the agency's small civilian police forces that work at their facilities who wield these new powers, not the intelligence personnel that they protect.

To suggest otherwise is either silly or slightly paranoid.

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at April 28, 2006 09:11 AM

As I do believe the ONI is very secretive. I doubt they were tracking whales. Plus with the munitions, I do believe if you strung a bunch of munitions on a blimp they could prove useful to special forces. Although they could of been testing the hit accuracy of the enemy when it came to hitting one of the munitions on the blimp and causing a "fatal fire." Furthermore the word fatal is usually used with a human reference, though thats just symantex. (I think I spelled like five words wrong...)

On a side note, I never thought in a million years I would see something about BSG on this site. It was one of those "oh cool I am not alone," moments :)

Posted by: Harry Toor at April 27, 2006 01:18 PM

Did anyone read page 14 of the "Navy gets blimpy" link? It states:
(1) blimps have participated in live-fire tests as targets - and performed well
(2) that the Skyship 600 was used in Iraq
(3) that it was fired upon, so it was in hostile territory
(4) that it was carrying munitions when it was fired upon, enough munitions to cause a fatal fire

The only references to a US military Skyship 600 I could find elsewhere was Navy ONI testing a Skyship for an intelligence collection platform in 2003 (and using it to track whales in 2003). What were munitions doing on an intelligence platform?

Posted by: Dan Theunissen at April 27, 2006 12:08 PM