Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
...The point I was getting at (perhaps poorly) is that no amount of SIGINT (for example) will inform you whether a telephone reference to "Uncle's birthday present" is to a terrorist event ... or a new tie.
Here you are operating on the generalization that SIGINT is ineffective in collecting information on intent because the communication is coded in one or form or another.

First off, many collection targets do make statements that help us to assess intent in the clear, with no attempt at disguising what they are saying. It may be because they are naively assuming that we can't intercept the mode of comms that they are using - or that they assume that we can't understand the language/dialect used in the conversation. In both cases they are often dead wrong. Sometimes literally.

Secondly, as stated in my previous post, no collection asset operates in a vacuum. Each feeds into the others, in multiple continuous loops, that integrates both raw and finished intel in collection planning that is constantly updated. To follow up on your example, a HUMINT asset may learn that a specific code-phrase of the type you refer to will be used to initiate ramping up the threat attack phase, but has nothing more than a general idea of to whom - or exactly how - the code-phrase will be passed along. That will key multiple collection assets into the hunt for the phrase - which will also lock us on to some of the key players in the emerging event. If we are lucky enough to intercept that specific communication.

As an aside, today's wireless comms, linking cell phones, internet, etc. fuses many operational aspects of both HUMINT and SIGINT and absolutely requires close collaboration in order to detect, intercept and exploit these comms and the human networks involved.

All the collection disciplines must work together to be effective. Unfortunately, too often we see turf battles and conflicts over resources rather than true collaboration - especially at the national level in the IC.