PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money.
Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year, considering the population of our country, the amount of ideological extremism domestically and internationally, and the States' interventionism?
Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it really is (I was a toddler when 9/11 happened, so it's all I know).
Last time I checked, the USA didn't need terror plots 'against the country'; they have enough problems with "deranged individuals" shooting at schools, events, protests, etc.
Why would you label those who could be your child, parent or neighbor, and disagree violently with those who have a different opinion than yours, as terrorists against the country? /s
I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.
It is not, nor is it even compatible with the protoypical example from which the term terrorist derives, since the original Terror and the Terrorists who executed it operated entirely within and through the power of the State. Non-state terrorism is a more recent extension of the definition. Nor does it even capture the mechanism of intended effect which defines terrorism (the whole part that motivates the reference to "terror".)
Britannica and, somewhat surprisingly, WordNet have probably the best general definitions I can quickly locate, "calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" and "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".
Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sledge hammer at a US Marshal, as what happened at the Federal Courthouse in Portland. (Remember, three of those Feds are now blind in at least one eye from the green lasers?)
But the Anarchists/Antifa types that are burning down Portland are also being thrown together with the McCloskeys who were arrested for having guns out, while on their lawn, after people broke into their gated community. Or Jake Gardner, who the DA ruled as acting in self defense, with a full video clearly showing him acting in self defense after both he and his father were attached.
We're starting to see real terrorists conflated with what are clearly political prisoners from local officials.
Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.
In this formulation of the rule, pointing a gun with the intent to threaten isn't valid, since an intention to threaten is not an intention to shoot.
I've pointed weapons at people without the intention of shooting them while covering other solders and on occasions where they "just didn't look right" -- can't just randomly start shooting people but you also don't want to be caught off guard if they decide to start shooting at you. The last time this happened some car rolled up on our guard post and all of us were pointing our weapons at said vehicle while we sent someone out to figure out what they wanted (which turned out to be the main gate so they could find out what happened to one of their relatives who was arrested or something). Nobody intended on shooting them but if they didn't stop short or acted suspiciously we would've lit them up with the .50cal.
But I agree, she should have treated the gun like it was armed and ready. She flagged the back of her husband's head several times.
BUT, that isn't in and of itself criminal. In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.
The law they're charged with says they were in violation of "brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner," but nowhere in the law do they define "threatening" .. it's ambiguous, it's a badly written law and it conflicts with federal laws and the 2nd amendment.
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are two lawyers who have done some incredible breakdowns on this case:
Along with never pointing your gun at something you don't want to destroy, you always assume a gun is loaded. That's not just a gun you pickup, that's any gun anywhere. If someone else is holding it then it's loaded too.
> In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.
Bullshit. Brandishing is a crime in pretty much every US state and Canadian province. There are affirmative defenses to Brandishing, like real physical threats to life or property, but that gate was community property and not theirs alone.
I could see them getting out of the charges and having enough reasonable doubt to do so. Right now it's being leveraged as a kulturekamf headline to make 2nd Amendment nuts get angry.
But make no mistake, if you point a real gun at people, with a finger on the trigger, you're implying you're going to kill someone. You'd better have a damned good reason for it, and be ready to stand to any consequences; "judged by a jury instead of by St. Peter", etc.
I never finished my video on Portland, but I do have one up on CHAZ, and I use to live and have friends in that area. I suggest you watch it:
https://battlepenguin.video/videos/watch/9f81cd38-3ee9-4f26-...
Anyway, best of luck. Thanks for being civil.
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/475908-384635-portland-fe...
That depends on your definition. If you're talking about organized 9/11 style attacks, absolutely. It's hard to bring plans like that together no matter how strong your convictions. If you're talking "random mentally ill person unleashes devastation on a group of US citizens" then no, there's certainly far more. That said, situations like that are best handled by local authorities. The Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a prime example of that because as the story unraveled it became clear that the shooter had a history that was well known to the local police (and FBI if I recall?).
The FBI made a huge deal about them stopping the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and take over their capital building. Why would they hide other stuff?
That should count.
I remember a story from years ago that some lab was working on a lens for a satellite for the NSA with a resolution that would be able to discern different coins on the ground from space. They were complaining that, after all their work, the job was cancelled, and they weren't going to get paid. What it meant, of course, was that they had found a better alternative.
The fact that the NSA isn't even bothering to lie about this is telling. The linked article says they won't even be trying to get Congress to let them continue the process, and this is even more telling. But what it's telling me ISN'T that it does not work, and it's certainly not because they suddenly grew a conscience about the Constitution. It's just that they don't need this particular vector to get the sigint they're looking for now.
As for the PRISM replacement, it's fair to assume that the NSA simply buys whatever social contact graphs it wants from Facebook and commercial data brokers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3448/was-hubble-re...
Only if you believe its stated purpose is its real purpose.
I suspect it's actually a huge success if you measure it against its real purpose.
(With a bonus side effect of lots of government dollars funneled to certain Contractors.)
We hear about the wins too.
The whole Bin Laden raid was a massive publicity coup for the Obama administration. It was shouted from the rooftops.
If a president can point to something in an election year and go "see, see there, I made you people safer," they will.
Surveillance is about gaining power through information asymmetry. Spying on military, political or FINANCIAL targets is worth trillions.
It has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with political hegemony.
215: https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/e...
702: https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/8...
Most of the Islamist terrorist plots federal authorities have 'broken up' over the past twenty years have involved undercover agents leading on people who are too dysfunctional to be dangerous to do things for which they can be convicted.
What if that wasn't a lie? If they truly couldn't tell you "anything" about them, they couldn't even acknowledge they existed. Whether or not a government should be allowed to keep such secrets is another matter.
This!