Combining this fiasco with others such as the Boston Marathon bombing (where the Feds got a specific advance warning about the perps but blew it off), we can only conclude:
[ul]
[li]The security apparatus is grossly incompetent.[/li]
[li]Requests from the security apparatus for more surveillance powers, bigger budgets, etc should not be seriously entertained – if they can’t properly use the tools they already have, they clearly can’t be trusted with more.[/li]
[li]Notwithstanding the above, the security apparatus chief bureaucrats are (instead of hanging their heads in shame and hiding themselves out of sight*) clanking their brass balls together and demanding to be rewarded for failure (see above re more surveillance powers, bigger budgets).[/li][/ul]
*Then again, given their demonstrated inability to find their own butts with both hands and an anatomical chart, perhaps they think that going on the media circuit is some sort of clever hiding-in-plain-sight stratagem.
I find the OP’s complaints bizarre. It’s like he’s living in a different world than I am.
The number of Parisians murdered by terrorists this year is quite a bit lower than the number of Chicagoans who will be murdered by other Chicagoans. In the grand scheme of things, terrorists kill remarkably few people as compared to the number I am sure they would like to kill.
I don’t mean to sound weird here but probably will; if you gave me some money and a few willing accomplices and took away my conscience and asked me to kill a huge number of people I bet I could off more than 130. A few cheap bombs, a couple of machine guns and a major sporting event and I bet I could get a thousand. In a free country it strikes me as being crazy easy to engage in mass murder on a grand scale if you’re sufficiently motivated AND plan the murder. The Paris terrorists, if anything, seemed inept. The Boston Marathon attack was even more inept. They killed what, three people at the marathon? The guy who attacked the Batman moviegoers killed twelve people and he was a lunatic. How can you attack a massive public gathering and only kill three people? Drunk drivers kill more people than that by accident. More Americans die falling off ladders every week.
Given how easy it should be to commit massive attacks of terror the only conclusions I can draw is that one or more of the following statements must be true;
There really aren’t very many determined terrorists
Such terrorists as there are lack planning and organizational skills, and
Intelligence agencies are in fact stopping many terrorist attacks we never hear about.
So they’re so busy catching all the clever ones who carefully hide their tracks— which we never hear about— that they don’t notice the idiots who do everything out in the open and pull it off? Huh.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason they are asking for more money is so they can actually do the type of monitoring that you want them to do?
Who the fuck thinks of paying an organization as some sort of reward? Who thinks refusing to give them money will allow them to do a better job?
But I also want to say to the OP that you’re grossly underestimating the amount of useless noise that exists in the intelligence world. More information is collected than can be analyzed and decisions have to be made all the time about what to be and what not to believe.
As an example, let’s say I phone in a tip and say “SteveMB is planning to shoot up his neighborhood” What response should the police take? They can’t just rush out, knock down your front door, drag you out of the shower, lock you up for a week and then say “Oops, I guess that tip was fake.” (And if they did do that, would you respond “Don’t apologize. In fact, I should thank you! Better to be locked up for a week than to be killed by terrorists.”)
Every step of investigation/verification and every legal justification like warrants not only slows down the process of following up on the tip, but creates a burden that requires them to choose which tips to follow and which to ignore. Money enables them to chase more leads and do more investigations, but there is no dollar amount that would let them pursue everything.
So I’ll admit that there is room for improvement and that law enforcement is not perfect. However, I think they’re doing a pretty fine job overall and should be cut a little slack.
“I could have done it better” is a questionable response to a recent mass killing.
If your argument is that terrorists are inept (and many clearly are), then the Paris attack is probably not the best example to reference.
If you do consider the orchestrators of the Paris attack to be inept (or insufficiently motivated?), you’re kind of supporting Steve MB’s point that the security agencies dropped the ball.
Yes, because they can afford to fend off against every such warning from every source.
The point is, the threat is higher than ever, and you want to not fund them so they won’t be able to deal with it. Your mindset makes no fucking sense.
It’s like complaining about how they dropped the ball on 9/11 and thus we shouldn’t increase security until that doesn’t happen again.
So, in other words, wait for another terrorist plot and hopefully foil it before you can get more money. That’s insane.
Well, more money would enable them to hire more staff to investigate more warnings. I’m fairly confident that they’re not all just sitting around the office looking at the single warning that comes in and going “eh, it’s probably nothing.”
Of course, they’re mostly not asking for more money. They’re asking for more power to surveil the general populace with no meaningful oversight. Which is obviously not necessary to accomplish their public safety goals, since they don’t even have enough manpower to investigate obvious tips right now. It would be pretty good for furthering the power of a shadowy police state, though.
The problem is that no amount of extra powers, money and personnel make up for the inherent problem that it’s difficult to choose where to concentrate your efforts. If you have a better method of doing that, spill it. But in the meantime, it’ll keep coming up again and again that intelligence services missed something that is pretty damned obvious in retrospect.
It’s funny that it comes out now that encryption was not used, since our intelligence apparatus was already pushing the idea that encryption enabled the Paris attacks.