Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (30479)	5/23/2002 2:19:35 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Bad data confounding U.S. intelligence BY JODI ENDA AND JOHN WALCOTT DETROIT FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF May 23, 2002 WASHINGTON -- On May 13, U.S. intelligence analysts braced for a major terrorist attack. A suspected Al Qaeda member had been overheard talking on the telephone about a "big wedding" planned for that day. "Big wedding," some counterterrorism analysts thought, could be code for a terrorist attack: A radical Arab group had used the term that way, and Libyan intelligence officials used to call planned terrorist operations "parties." May 13 came and went, and the analysts were chagrined to discover that what happened that day was -- a big wedding. After criticism that they ignored clues leading up to the Sept. 11 attack on the United States, officials now are telling the public about every big wedding that might occur. New York officials closed the Brooklyn Bridge for nearly an hour early Wednesday morning and have bolstered security at other bridges, tunnels and the Statue of Liberty after vague, uncorroborated threats. Authorities have warned that terrorists might strike large apartment buildings and national landmarks. Vice President Dick Cheney warned that terrorists would attack Americans "tomorrow or next week or next year," FBI Director Robert Mueller III said suicide bombings were "inevitable," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said terrorists would obtain weapons of mass destruction and Secretary of State Colin Powell said terrorists were trying to get chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. This burst of openness from an administration better known for secrecy may help insulate President George W. Bush and his aides from criticism that they're keeping the public in the dark about possible attacks. And, if another attack does take place, they may be able to say, "We told you so." But, a senior intelligence official said, the flood of raw intelligence, most of it worthless and some of it probably disinformation, reveals how the U.S. intelligence community is choking on bad information and yearning for something reliable. "We have too much information that's unreliable or outright deception and almost nothing that could tip us off to a real attack," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous. Worse, said a second intelligence official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, circulating undigested intelligence may only be helping Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, by terrorizing the American people. The question of what information to release to the public poses a dilemma to each administration, said James Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser to former President Bill Clinton. "There is a lot of information that passes through the system. It poses two challenges," he said. "Is it reliable, and is it useful? The two are not the same. Sometimes there's stuff that's reliable but not specific. It makes you nervous, but what are you supposed to do about it?" Issuing too many vague warnings could be harmful, because they wear down the public and law enforcement officials, said Stanley Bedlington, a former senior analyst in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center who's now a consultant on terrorism.