Without comment, a comment from Techdirt: "The security theater is ridiculous"

[grantcart]

53. I support what exactly?

Since I haven't issued a policy statement on what I support I am curious what you think I support, especially in light of several reality based concerns I have raised on several occasions about efficacy and cost beyond the issue of civil liberties (see reply #52 below).

I will tell you what I don't support and that is overblown hyperbole and historical ignorance.

Someone else quoted an article by Noam Chomsky that intelligence gathering has NO value.

History has shown quite the opposite and in our major conflicts intelligence gathering has been the strategic factor in our military efforts.

It started with Washington's effective use of intelligence to surprise the Hessians and since that time where we have had superior intelligence gathering we have had victories where we should have been defeated and losses where we were militarily superior.

In the Civil and First World War there was no substantial intelligence advantage of one side over the other (except the South had more sympathizers north and were able to have generally better intelligence) and both wars were decided by intractable engagements of attrition.

In World War II we had a decisive advantage in intelligence in both theaters of action and in both theaters it provided a decisive strategic and tactical advantage. In the Pacific we were completely defeated and had the Japanese forces stayed in Hawaii we would have faced 100% defeat. Because we had substantially better intelligence we were able to defeat a much larger naval force. For an example you can study the Battle of the Coral Sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea.

In the European Theater we had also broken the Enigma Code and as a result was able to misdirect the Axis forces on where the invasion was going to land and as a result successfully land at Normandy.

After WWII Senator McCarthy led a politicized attack against our diplomatic and intelligence community and drove out our best experts including people like John Stewart Service who had been 100% correct about developments in China. As a result after the landing at Inchon when the UN forces went north there was a major miscalculation about Chinese intent and China entered the war. This lack of expertise in the far East remained and was a major reason why there were numerous miscalculations that led to major strategic and tactical errors in Vietnam.

So for those that argue for a complete dismantling, that is not going to happen but if it makes you feel better then go ahead.

The reason that they are not going to detail successes is because the reason that those successes succeeded rested on "sources and methods" and that is why they are not going to reveal anything about "sources and methods". It is not a new question. It can only be solved in a representative government by effective methods of overview, not dismantling. Such discussions are largely a waste of time here because the hyperbole has reached such ridiculous levels that sensible discussion is a waste of time. The fact is folks like you are all wound up waiting to jump on anything or anybody that doesn't agree with your completely unfounded perspective, and the fact that you would characterize my position without being informed of it is a perfect example.