Posted on Feb 25, 2016
5
5
0
Here is another allegation of wrongdoing by military intelligence folks ostensibly to alter reports to support the political positions and policies of the WH and DOD. Is something like this even possible in this day and age?
House chairman: Military files, emails deleted amid ISIS intel assessment probe
Posted from militarytimes.com
Politics
Terrorism
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
If this is true that military intelligence folks altered ISIS intelligence reports to support the political positions and policies of the White House and DOD that is disgraceful and also worthy of prosecution Capt Tom Brown.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
The issue with intelligence assessments, and collaborative work is that when you add or subtract people to them is that the assessment can change dramatically.
As an example, let's say Capt Richard I P. SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" and myself were working on a product. We come up with an "Assessment" (Intelligence Opinion) of something. It goes up the chain. If someone else adds to it, it can change the context to the point where it doesn't say what we originally said. If someone removes a "portion" it can also say something completely different. It would be the equivalent of adding or subtracting the word "not" to a quote.
The big issue is when you are using multiple reports from multiple sources to create a specific interpretation. You are "crafting a narrative" or "telling a story." When you intentionally leave out something because it doesn't match the narrative, there are huge ethical concerns.
As an example, let's go back to Gen Powell and his Iraq briefing. When he gave that, "the narrative" fully supported Invasion. In hindsight, it has been shown portions were left out (he was unaware of). This is just a historical example.
Manipulation of data is "simple" if you are presenting it to a layman who doesn't know what "followup" questions to ask. So, could the WH & DoD direct "spin?" Absolutely. How far down would it get? About "Agency" level, as that's where mandated record keeping exists. Below that, there would be a lot of push back up, but it would be much harder to clarify where the disconnects happened.
As an example, let's say Capt Richard I P. SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" and myself were working on a product. We come up with an "Assessment" (Intelligence Opinion) of something. It goes up the chain. If someone else adds to it, it can change the context to the point where it doesn't say what we originally said. If someone removes a "portion" it can also say something completely different. It would be the equivalent of adding or subtracting the word "not" to a quote.
The big issue is when you are using multiple reports from multiple sources to create a specific interpretation. You are "crafting a narrative" or "telling a story." When you intentionally leave out something because it doesn't match the narrative, there are huge ethical concerns.
As an example, let's go back to Gen Powell and his Iraq briefing. When he gave that, "the narrative" fully supported Invasion. In hindsight, it has been shown portions were left out (he was unaware of). This is just a historical example.
Manipulation of data is "simple" if you are presenting it to a layman who doesn't know what "followup" questions to ask. So, could the WH & DoD direct "spin?" Absolutely. How far down would it get? About "Agency" level, as that's where mandated record keeping exists. Below that, there would be a lot of push back up, but it would be much harder to clarify where the disconnects happened.
(3)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
I've seen this be a big issue: where the analyst that wrote the opinion no longer recognizes the assessment by the time it is published, still credited to the analyst rather than the 5 levels of chop. I've seen some who felt so strongly that they refused to keep their name in the credit and insisted that the editors put theirs instead.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Rand (contractor) did a no name SURVEY. FIFTY military analysts SAID, what is being reported to the American people. Someone very high up said ISIS oil trucks going to our 'friend' NATO member TURKEY could not be bombed for a year. Collateral damage??? Who is kidding who?
(1)
(0)
SSgt Mark Lines
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Thanks for the insight. People do not realize that intelligence is not and A or B field. It can be changed by something as simple as the person interpreting it attitude, political beliefs, morals, etc.. We all have and wear a set of blinders that are built over time by our experiences.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I hope it is not military folks. I have no faith in BG Groves STANDING UP to Obozo political pressure. The current Army CogS relieved the best apache squadron commander for breaking up a female CPT and subordinate 1LT, kissing on the dance floor and taking their blouses off. Enforce UCMJ against LEZ behavior during a formal unit function? Dropped from 0-6 promotion list and WAr College attendance. I would not have believed this ten years ago. Representative Duncan Hunter R, CA (USMC) blocked confirmation of ? Fanning, first openly gay Sec of the Army. Let US not grow any more warriors, they are bad people. Preserve the Constitution!
Why did POTUS never have a REAL draft card?
Why did POTUS never have a REAL draft card?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google