Well, this is f***ed up. <I> <B>Pentagon defends 'terror market'</B> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon views it as a potentially innovative way to get clues about terrorists' plans: a public, stock market-style exchange where traders can profit by correctly predicting terror attacks or assassinations in the Middle East. But two Democratic senators say the program is useless, offensive and immoral. They are demanding that the program be stopped before investors start signing up Friday. "The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it's grotesque," Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said Monday. The program is called the Policy Analysis Market. The Pentagon office overseeing it, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, said it was part of a research effort "to investigate the broadest possible set of new ways to prevent terrorist attacks." Traders would buy and sell futures contracts -- just like energy traders do now in betting on the future price of oil. But the contracts in this case would be based on what might happen in the Middle East in terms of economics, civil and military affairs or specific events, such as terrorist attacks. Holders of a futures contract that came true would collect the proceeds of traders who put money into the market but predicted wrong. A graphic on the market's Web page Monday showed hypothetical futures contracts in which investors could trade on the likelihood that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would be assassinated or Jordanian King Abdullah II would be overthrown. Although the Web site described the Policy Analysis Market as a Middle East market, the graphic also included the possibility of a North Korea missile attack. That graphic apparently was removed from the Web site hours after the news conference in which Wyden and fellow Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota criticized the market. Market called 'unbelievably stupid' Dorgan described the market as "unbelievably stupid." "Can you imagine if another country set up a betting parlor so that people could go in ... and bet on the assassination of an American political figure or the overthrow of this institution or that institution?" he said. But in its statement Monday, DARPA said markets could reveal "dispersed and even hidden information. Futures markets have proven themselves to be good at predicting such things as elections results; they are often better than expert opinions." According to its Web site, the Policy Analysis Market would be a joint program of DARPA and two private companies, Net Exchange, a market technologies company, and the Economist Intelligence Unit, the business information arm of the publisher of The Economist magazine. DARPA has been criticized by Congress for its Terrorism Information Awareness program, a computerized surveillance program that has raised privacy concerns. Wyden said the Policy Analysis Market is under the supervision of retired Adm. John Poindexter, the head of the Terrorism Information Awareness program and, in the 1980s, national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan. The Web site does not address how much money investors would be likely to put into the market but says analysts would be motivated by the "prospect of profit and at pain of loss" to make accurate predictions. Trading is to begin October 1. The market would initially be limited to 1,000 traders, increasing to at least 10,000 by January 1. The Web site says government agencies will not be allowed to participate and will not have access to the identities or funds of traders. The market is a project of a DARPA division called FutureMAP, or "Futures Markets Applied to Prediction." "The rapid reaction of markets to knowledge held by only a few participants may provide an early warning system to avoid surprise," the FutureMap Web site said. Dorgan and Wyden released a letter to Poindexter calling for an end to the program. They noted a May 20 report to lawmakers that cited the possibility of using market forces to predict whether Israel will be attacked with biological weapons. "Surely such a threat should be met with intelligence gathering of the highest quality -- not by putting the question to individuals betting on an Internet Web site," they said. Wyden said $600,000 has been spent on the program so far and the Pentagon plans to spend an additional $149,000 this year. The Pentagon has requested $3 million for the program for next year and $5 million for the following year. Wyden said the Senate version of next year's defense spending bill would cut off money for the program, but the House version would fund it. The two versions will have to be reconciled. </I>
That is damned odd program. What the heck does that have to do with protecting us from terrorism? Couldn't they have spent that on some more JDAMS?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...m/20030729/bs_nm/security_market_wolfowitz_dc Wolfowitz testified this morning that this plan has been scrapped. Good to see that the Bush Administration has seen the error of its ways...for a change.
Good lord... the lunatics are running the asylum. Whoever came up with this should be show the door. And Wolfowitz saying it's been scrapped gives me no comfort at all. When is Bush going to surround himself with good advisors?? When hell freezes over?
Do you guys really think Bush & his cronies are sitting around telling DARPA what research to pursue? I would venture to guess that the White House told 'em to scrap it the minute they found out about it. Could be wrong, but that's just my gut feeling.
I think it is a GREAT idea. Free financial markets, unlike you emotional lefties, only care about truth. Offending people is not important in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Can you imagine how many resources would be applied to solving the problem of terrorism if this plan was implemented?
No, I am talking about the resources that financial firms would pour into the project if there were money to be made here. Greed is good. - GG
The purpose of the Defense Department is not to make the government money. This 1) doesn't do anything to help the war against terrorism and 2) leads to a whole range of possibilities of fraud.
The Web site says government agencies will not be allowed to participate and will not have access to the identities or funds of traders.
In other words, this important research would be funded by private financial firms, be conducted in private, and the American people would benefit immensly. What is the problem, except that some emotionally driven, testosterone challenged Democrat threw a hissy fit?
What you call emotion driven testosterone challenged must Apply to Wolfowitz, who isn't a democrat, because he claimed to be upset by this, and thought it was horrible. Being opposed to this has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with morality. I don't know if morality plays a role for you in politics or not. But for many of us it does. Placing money on potential terror attacks doesn't seemed principled. I'm sure if this was in place prior to 9/11 none of the families of victims who died there would take comfort that someone would be collecting $$ because they bet that the twin towers would be the target. Should we bring back gladiator fights and then use the money for good causes? I don't care what the money is used for or if it's a private corporation doing it.
I was going to post this topic yesterday, but was too lazy to start a new thread. It's unbelievable that this would even be given 30 seconds of thought/discussion time. Every single politician that backed this plan or thought it was worth discussion should be docked their pay to pay back the 600 g's that was wasted and then kicked out of their political seat. I swear life is slowly becoming a cross between RoboCop and The Running Man.
Do you actually think that just becuase the agencies wouldn't be allowed to participate, that no single employee or former employee would ever get involved? You think that it's IMPOSSIBLE that an agent would allow or maybe even facilitate the assassination/overthrow of a foreign government or leader that was deemed dangerous, and then decided to make a little cash on the side? There's too much of a possibility of a conflict of interest, plus it's in bad taste. I'd be upset if the French started a lottery and bet on how many US casualties would be in Iraq, even if they didn't allow the French gov't or Iraqis to wager.
Whine on girly man, I hear ya'. I don't care at all for anybody's "feelings", if we can avert future terror attacks.
I'm actually not whining. WHining is what happens when conservatives cry any time race or civil rights is brought up. I'm looking after Americans, and in particular the victims of 9/11. The terror market wouldn't prevent diddly squat and is immoral. Does morality have a part in politics for you? I'm asking because you claim not to care about people's feelings and preventing terror attacks when I bring up 9/11, and you quote the antagonist of a movie with your, 'greed is good' line. Also your idea to shame people dying of a killer disease is starting to give me that idea. I don't want to put words in your mouth, because they might knock out some of the personal insults you use from time
How is this preventing anything? And knock off the namecalling, john. Franchise has already responded in kind and nothing good will come out of it.
What is the problem, except that some emotionally driven, testosterone challenged Democrat threw a hissy fit? Well, for one, the possibility for fraud. If someone has bet $100,000 that a terrorist will strike on x day at 1000-1 odds and is obsessed with money, what's to stop him from doing things to make sure that happens? Morbid? Yes. Likely? No. Possible? Absolutely.
