ICE Fails to Redact Document, Reveals Location of 'Urban Warfare' Facility | Hacker News Reader

ICE Fails to Redact Document, Reveals Location of 'Urban Warfare' Facility

newsweek.com

39 pointsspraak21 comments

Why would ICE need an “Urban Warfare” facility? Note that this is at the famous counter-insurgency training centre, the US army “School of Americas”, notorious for training central and South American death squads.

It’s just a fancy SWAT team training facility. Probably has “Warfare” in the name because it’s getting built on Ft. Benning, an Army base. Wouldn’t be surprised if the facility gets shared with Army units who also do indoor and urban combat training.

This seems like the most plausible explanation. Federal agencies / military share these types of facilities everywhere. It's sad you're being downvoted for it.

Why is this downvoted? He has a point to a plausible reason for the name. It’s built at an army base that is also likely used for multiple different types of units. Would it make everyone sleep better at night naming it “Fluffy Bear Facility”? Would everyone prefer that we don’t have the tactical ability when and if needed? I am personally highly against war, but at the same time I feel much more comfortable knowing that we do have the ability and advantage when needed. I think the argument should be “how is this facility used and under what circumstances do these trained units utilize their skills?”

Because 1) there is nothing in the document about it being a shared resource (copy at https://www.wabe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LSJ_Hyper_Re... ), and 2) the FBI already has such facilities, like 'Hogan's Alley' at Quantico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan's_Alley_(FBI) ). There are many other similar facilities, like in Artesia, NM https://www.fletc.gov/artesia-new-mexico

Now, the document claims that this will be a "hyper-realistic" facility, and that only one company is able to provide such unique capabilities.

This leads to some obvious questions: 1) if hyperrealism is so important, why aren't the other facilities, including the FBI, already asking for improvements to their existing sites? 2) why should there be new sites for these sorts of training facilities - what tactical training abilities aren't already available? and 3) if it's so important, why isn't it explicitly being developed as a shared resource?

I think the bureaucratic is more reasonable than the one proposed by the grandparent post, that is, each federal organization acts as its own fiefdom and wants its own things. Plus, there's probably some graft - is it really the case that only a single company can provide such construction?

All those Alex Jones fans are going to be so surprised when it turns out to be ICE running the domestic prison camps instead of FEMA.

Every govt agency has their little elite training center. Funding is use it or lose it, so once you have a budget you spend it.

Because the ICE being groomed to be used against us.

Yes, they're clearly the force that Trump is going to use to assume his dictatorship for life. First he'll go door to door and put a bullet in the head of anyone that doesn't pledge allegiance to him. Then he's going to put anyone that doesn't have blonde hair in concentration camps and force-feed them toilet water

Reminds me of the comedy(?) The Oath: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LcVhhno-Uo

> “... training facility that is expected to include "hyper-realistic" simulations of homes, hotels and commercial buildings in Chicago and Arizona.”

Is there something special about Chicago and Arizona?

Most likely areas where they perform a lot of family separations that can also be close enough to other common locations with many people of color to be a useful training aid. Arizona is close to the south with wide open cities and Chicago is indicative of a lot of northern cities with choose packed buildings. There's already a ton of teaching facilities for individual houses or foreign locations. This is really not that surprising. If they were building something like Minneapolis or Boise I'd take more notice.

I am wondering the same thing

Just curious, if this seems to be of uttermost importance pertaining to national security, then why do the media broadcast it for the rest of the world to see?

They’re doing their job? It was a leak. Also ICE screwed up.

There is a balance to be struck, sure, but the duty of the press is to inform the public, not to act as censors or to determine what is or is not a matter of national security.

The press is partially there to disagree with or at least critique such subjective judgments.

The fifth estate isn't an apparatus of the government. Sometimes, it must act counter to the interests of the government.

First of all, none of this is actually important for national security. Second, the media does this to help hold government accountable.

Two points, in reverse order:

> why do the media broadcast it for the rest of the world to see?

ICE broadcasted it, didn't they? It's in nobody's best interest to pretend that the information was successfully redacted.

> this seems to be of uttermost importance pertaining to national security

Are we talking about the same ICE? ICE is a joke; everyone was better off before it was created in 2002 and it should be abolished and prevented from wasting any more of my money on "URBAN WARFARE!1!" facilities. Give me a break.

Because governments should be accountable to the governed, and the media is part of the governed. Media is not a separate arm of the people, it is a more involved and interpreted part of the people.

This is why it’s so alarming when a politician calls media “the enemy” because they are, in effect, saying their own people are the enemy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com