IMO, the no-fly-list should be challenged (and reserved for people who should be in jail, i.e., should not exist) since not traveling is so burdensome. If you want to blow up airlines you should be in jail or mental hospital.
Is this the case of someone guilty getting 25 years in jail for not wanting to snitch?
It's their job to pick someone, you can't assume guilt because he was chosen.
He's got a lot to lose which the article makes painfully clear:
- time with family
- personal reputation
- fulfilling personal/religion goals
- ... and a lot more
Personally, I think it enlightening to consider the opposite scenario: what about those on the fringe with nothing to lose? The FBI has a life changing program for you! They'll give you a sense of purpose, a feeling like you're part of something, and all the support you need to ... become the star of the next foiled terrorist plot.
Leverage takes many forms, and need not have anything to do with being guilty of a crime.
This is an absolutely disgusting suggestion.
Maybe on paper or as long as you are lucky.
In most EU countries such stories of police abuse are way, way less common.
Including things like unwarranted searches, seizing money with no good reason, swatting, aggressive questioning.
Maybe you can let us know about the facts you have at hand to make claims like these.
EDIT: yes I got it thank you to everyone who explained. I'm not a native english speaker and misunderstood the phrasing.
But their statement was open to misinterpretation, and it's possible that I might be the misinterpreter.
Here's an audio interview with Ruth Wilson Gilmore elaborating. https://theintercept.com/2020/06/10/ruth-wilson-gilmore-make...