The FBI is tracking whom?
schneier.com
schneier.com
- young Muslim male
- travels extensively to / lived in a Muslim country
- linked to another "person of interes"
- has immediate family that currently lives in a Muslim country
- sends money to family members in a Muslim country
- he returned alone to the US while the rest of his family stayed in Egypt.
Now, although traking does seem like an over reaction in this case you gotta ask yourself what job it is the FBI is tasked with. I have yet to see a comment mentioning the end of the article where the FBI agent says to the kid "don't worry you're boring", meaning they figured out he is not a threat. Also, we do not know why the FBI specifically wanted to track this kid. Perhaps the kid knows people even more interesting and they want to use him to get to them. Who knows.
I also do not agree with warrantless tracking and if they did need to get a warrant perhaps they would have thought more and decided not to track this kid. That said, the FBI watches potential threats all the time and this kid has all the flags, for better or worse.
Yup. The Haitians are especially dangerous, second only to the home-grown Lutheran terrorists.
If you're going to complain afterwards that the govt didn't "connect the dots" ....
Replace [Egyptian-]muslim by whatever (asian, nigerian,
haitian, mexican, brazillian) and you have a generic
immigrant profile.
Also, FWIW, "criminal profilers" were recently featured in cracked.com's "The 6 Most Statistically Full of Shit Professions" http://www.cracked.com/article_18380_the-6-most-statisticall...
In some places printing pictures of historical figures causes riots. In other places beheadings go unnoticed. So, what's your point?
What makes this racial profiling? The fact that there is a where or group by clause in the query which uses religion as an argument for matches? I would have a problem if that were the only criteria, clearly it is not because if it were all people of that religion would be under surveillance.
I would argue that those that are tasked with our security should most definitely keep an eye on and know what is going on with Muslims both home and abroad. This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorists are Muslims. To discount the fact that we are currently persecuting a war against Islamic extremists would be foolish.
It would be the height of politically-correct-group-think to not watch this group and single out individuals for investigation specifically when there are multiple flags. By "watch this group" I specifically mean using it as a flag in their decision matrix when combing through their vast databases. We can argue as to which flags or combination of flags warrant further action but that does not negate the fact that it should be done.
If he supports his family financially, surely that makes him less likely to become a suicide bomber (or other terrorist)?
The other thing worth remembering is how the person of interest to whom the kid is linked became a person of interest. He posted a comment on reddit speculating about how easy it would be for terrorists to wreak havoc by hitting arbitrary soft targets throughout the country.
Like hiring, catching terrorists is a game where you should be willing to take a lot of false positives to avoid one false negative. But it can go too far, and people's worry is that it has done here.
Having the background you have I'm sure you know which groups are more of a concern and which groups are less of a concern and to whom under certain circumstances.
Alex Jones or one of his affiliates posted an essay stating that if there truly were terrorists in America, they could suicide bomb 200 malls in a day for less than $200,000 -- and surely this would terrify the populace. We'd demand metal detectors at all public facilities. There could be a follow up attack every day. (with a "package left behind").
The end of the article goes to conclude that this doesn't happen, because the threat is not significant.
That this kid (or rather, the kid's friend) quoted a 'radical' libertarian on reddit (and didn't cite sources) HARDLY makes him a threat. Somebody at the FBI should be fired for the sheer idiocy of their profiling programs.
Ask American Muslims you know if they know anyone that the FBI has talked to in some capacity or if the FBI has shown up at the local mosque. You'd be surprised.
How far will they go to 'prevent' terrorism?
When a terrorist slips through (eg, the underwear bomber) people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind not to follow leads that are obvious in retrospect. When they get caught following up a terrible lead (eg a Reddit post), people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind, and so on.
So if they start slaughtering people tomorrow and bosses don't tell them to stop in time, then they are just "doing their job" right?
> ... but law enforcement gets a lot of crap in all seasons.
I wonder why that is? Why don't barbers, engineers, firefighters get as much crap?
And besides, who are bosses anyway? Aren't people the bosses. If people pay taxes for this "protection" they have all the justification to howl. How is that different than paying for a service, not getting it, and then complaining.
> When they get caught following up a terrible lead (eg a Reddit post), people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind, and so on.
If people didn't "howl" in that case, then we would have clearly reached some kind of total surveilance stage, where citizens are monitored by law enforcement agencies for any reason, any time, and nobody thinks twice about it.
Notice how the traditional media didn't "howl" too much at it. That's a telling lesson of the kind of biases we are dealing with.
The priorities law enforcement deals with have fundamental conflicts which are often fueled by outrage and political expediency. It's not a fun situation for anyone. No one wants to be "soft on crime", but neither do they want their malls blown up.
I imagine that barbers don't get the same level of crap because their job is not a political football. I am certainly not excusing stupidity or malice.
The CIA no longer operates its intelligence-sharing and counter-intelligence programs exclusively abroad. The whole "rendition/torture/secret prison" thing is a fact of life.
Their job is to make sure we never even hear about the terror plot. They have no real oversight by "we the people". They're driven and good at what they do and this is not a new game to them.
We only hear about law enforcement, and I like said, they're our last line of defense, just after the boys brigade and the league of woman's voters.
Reality: every terrorist that actually tried anything has reached their target (though most blow it and fail to do any damage). The CIA isn't a super group that's swatting down terrorists like flies and we only hear of the 1 or 2 that get through while thousands are blocked. That's pure fantasy.
Hardly obscure: http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-...
Yeah, they should have obeyed the law, but I don't have a problem with them watching him, so long as they don't actually disrupt his life. (They failed at that, too, though.)
Which terrorist cells work this way exactly? Al Quieda? Except that's a made up name for an organization that doesn't exist. So where does your insight about how terrorist "cells" work come from exactly?
Al-Qaeda does exist, but in the same way Athiesm exists as an organization. One doesn't have to attend regular meetings to be considered a "member". Note: I am not comparing the views of either ideas/groups, but the structural nature.
I do agree with your point however. Instead of putting a short leash on this kid, DHS or FBI could have easily interviewed him, probably with his permission, and found out that he is no threat to national security. He's here to attend school, and will occasionally send money to only his family, not some large, decentralized terrorist group. This kid wants everything you and I want, with freedom being high on his priorities.
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-...
The name was made up to use the RICO law to charge people who weren't present in the first WTC bombing. The name never existed before that. Bin Laden probably calls himself this now because he thinks it's a fancy western name for Muslim extremists.
> Instead of putting a short leash on this kid, DHS or FBI could have easily interviewed him, probably with his permission, and found out that he is no threat to national security.
The question is: why was he considered at all? Because he is half Egyptian? Or could it have to do with him pointing out how stupid and fictional the "War on Terror" is?