I know the US has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions for a long time now. But the more the US flaunts internal laws and norms on war, the more likely aggressors are going to put them aside and we're back to the savagery of World War I -- except now we have deadlier conventional and biological/chemical weapons.
Not sure what any of these programs have to do with GC violations or laws/norms of war? Literally every major industrialized country has clandestine programs and this business predates the GCs by millennia ("the world's second-oldest profession, distinguished from the oldest one by its relative lack of ethics or morals").
From the point of view of "democracy" this is definitely a bug. But from the point of view of SAPs and commercial interests involved in them, this is mostly a feature (except when things are so secret and locked down it's hard to bring in talent to work on them). Tho, in the case of this so-called "secret army" they don't seem to be suffering any talent shortage :p;) xx
To the extent that there's anything "blacker than black" it's the decisions that intelligence officers and the contract employees who support them do on their own initiative - that, and things that are done under the aegis of foreign governments.
It's an ugly world out there and the US does ugly things in its citzens' name, and many of them are openly reported, e.g., killing children with hot shrapnel via drone strikes. Shady clandestine paramilitary operations do certainly happen, most of which never see the light of day. But even the SAPest of SAPs will run into big problems if it messes with US citizens in any capacity without very high-level authorization, which is more or less never given. The Awlaki sanction was a big, big decision for example. I'm pretty darn sure that psychological experiments on everyday Americans without their consent is not a thing that's happening.
I suppose a few other counterpoints I have are how I heard numerous times that Trump wasn't briefed into certain things because people in intelligence thought he might loud mouth about it. And secondly, I think the scope for discretion, noted by your, "it's the decisions that intelligence officers and the contract employees who support them do on their own initiative - that, and things that are done under the aegis of foreign governments." is actually pretty large. Especially when you consider that large multinational corporations might be contracted. I suppose I'm talking more about defense/security related tech programs, and less about actual intelligence operations, tho I threw in that obvious example to make a point. I'm prepared to accept that's how it used to be but no longer is with regard to the latter at least.
But on the technology/science side, I'm less convinced black SAPs have full-spectrum EB oversight. Does the EB really already know everything that goes on at Los Alamos? Nevada Test Site? Or various defense corporation facilities worldwide contracted and funded at least in part by the US government? I definitely think there are some people who have a large picture, but I don't believe it to be EB, unfortunately, as I said at first, for "democracy" :( ;p xx
How many layers within layers might those companies and programs have, where they are receiving funding and technology and not filtering the general picture back up to EB? I think there's a definite possibility of that, for sure! :p ;) xx
I'm going to go read a bit more about Awlaki, Church, Title 50. Thank you again!! :P ;) xx
As far as Los Alamos, aliens, etc -- super interesting topic. The recent UFO footage released by the Navy sure does make you wonder. Who knows....
How is this playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions?
I don't know enough about the laws of war to understand how that relates non-combat roles (is it OK to dress as a civilian for surveillance? presumably?), which I think is most of what this article was about, however.
It’s a very blurry line, but actual combat seems to be one major distinction. Disguising a battleship as an enemy or merchant vessel seems to be okay...as long as the disguise is dropped before engaging. However, marking it as a hospital ship seems right out regardless of the situation because the hospital emblem is specially protected because those ships are never supposed to be attacked.
This database has many countries’ interpretation of the differences: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
This includes units like the 75th Ranger Regiment, most likely the largest SOF organization. According to a quick glance at their Wiki task org, 14 of the 27 COs exist in either a support, command, or training capacity. This roughly breaks down to 50% of the entire Regiment, and the 75th should (in theory) have the highest ratio of trigger pullers to support personnel within the SOF world.
Additionally, most of these SOF organizations have other (more conventional) mission sets they would be supporting at the same time. It can also be assumed that less than half of an organization's personnel are deployed at any given time, while the remaining personnel remain stateside retraining and preparing for their rotation--leaving a relatively small percentage of the alleged 30k SOF personnel actively participating in clandestine operations.
Article admits that only the real spies use fake IDs and then only during a mission: "Most signature reduction soldiers travel under real names, exchanging operational identities only once on the ground where they operate,".
Also some of this sounds like disinformation, e.g., re ability to manipulate enemies databases to get through security. Sounds like noise to freak opponents out.
I wonder how representative the 60k estimate is of the true size of people whose main full-time work is mostly in SAPs / black budget programs, not just these seemingly "operationally focused" ones.
To name a few other BS outlets that once had a good reputation:
Forbes Cnn Inc. venturebeat Mashable The list goes on...
Though I can't recall what the exact changes are, this post doesn't show up at least.