NYPD, the CIA and possible violations of the Constitution

http://news.yahoo.com/cia-help-nypd-moves-covertly-muslim-areas-090019915.html

Here's another truly frightening article.

 

Ya know what, I hate to sound "racist," but I personally feel that monitoring Muslim communities is probably a smart thing to do from an "intelleigence" perspective because that is where real terrorists are more likely to reside. However, it is scary to think that the Methodist communities (of which I am a part) could be next. I kind of have mixed feelings on this issue. :shrug:

 

As you're a blonde, I'm going to make the presumption that you are white. And as Nappy is looking for white people as potential "lone wolf" terrorists so it could very well be that Methodist communities will be next.

Do the Methodists still sing their hymns with the wonderful abandon that I remember growing up in a Methodist church?

 

Here's more from today's nj.com:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/new_york_police_department_spi.html

 

Yes, but only in the "contemporary" worship service! The singing in the "traditional" worship service is mostly apathetic and off-key.

 

They still sing though. We "Southern" Baptists used to sing and then get scolded for having fun doing so.

 

Well, I'm afraid I can't agree with this, as we have had plenty of terrorist of the home grown variety over the years; Norway provides possibly the best example of your non-Muslim (in fact, anti-Muslim) terrorist, but we recently had the Holocaust Museum shooting, which I would count as terrorism, and it was bad enough as it was, but could have been a lot worse. Our problem in this country with "lone wolf" terrorists is that of course they are harder to track and prevent, not being part of a conspiracy, and, with ready access to firearms, one lone wolf can do a helluva lot of damage. One doesn't need to acquire bomb construction knowledge to be such a terrorist.

 

Smart tewwowists hide their back issues of Jihad Footsoldier Today under the litterbox.

 

Agreed, focusing on someone based simply on their ethnicity or nationality or race is counterproductive. All you manage to do is make (those that may have given you some information to help on real threats) mad at you for hassling them for no good reason. Individuals can change the course of history with a single bullet, bomb or even knife. Watching trends of things is fine, and focusing on folks that buy 40,000 lbs of fertilizer and have it delivered to an apartment building in the Bronx is ok as well. Watching someone simply because they have on a hijab or wear a long gown or speak differently than you do is wrong and a waste of resources.

 

Nappy has identified White Middle Class Males as likely terrorist. How does that square with your comment?

 

Well, I can see how there could be an issue over how a prototype terrorist should be displayed in a fictional presentation.

If we just look at the incidents, such as Columbine, the Holocaust Museum shooting, Oklahoma City, Unabomber, various KKK type groups, well, seems like there's been quite a bit of native terrorism among the white population. Even going back to the conspiracy to murder Abraham Lincoln, I think we might readily identify that as terrorism. Certainly John Brown would fit well within the definition of terrorist as used today.

BTW, I think there is a different aspect to our home grown terrorists in this country, and that is the use of readily and legally acquired firearms, making bomb use (yes, I know this was done at Columbine, but not as the principal killing method) less important. Take for example the North Hollywood Shootout. That was a bank robbery on steroids, but not what I would consider "terrorism". But the methods employed, including well-trained and disciplined perpetrators, heavily armed and armored, show what kind of harm could be done if the same techniques were used, for example, in a terrorist attack on a transportation facility.

What prevents this from occurring is, among other things, that it is likely far more difficult to recruit and train persons into such an enterprise than one might think.

 

Yes, for that reason, as well as basic fairness, I have always opposed racial or ethnic profiling in connection with TSA screening.

 

What is the difference between a "lone wolf" terrorist and just a plain ol' "total nut-job?"
BTW, I think you owe wolves an appology. I happen to admire those creatures. IMHO, either "rabid-wolf" or "mad-wolf" would be more descriptive terms than "lone-wolf" since wolves commonly travel in packs.

 

1) Yes, "lone wolf" does seem to be restricted to situations where they want us to be really scared.
2) Sorry, wolves of the world.

 

There have always been disgruntled former soldiers, wingnuts and just plain loonies from all races. I dislike narrowing the focus from watching for actions and intel, to focusing on a single subset of people. Anyone can be a terrorist, there is no template for what they look like, talk like, walk like - you get the point. I think that what happens many times with folks in a position like Ms. Napolitano, is they want to make a point that profiling someone of a specific ethnicity or religion or race would not be the correct way to go. Then they make a statement based on some intel whispers or something that they are acting on, and it doesn't sound quite like they want it to. They say "we have credible intelligence that a former Army caucasians have been making threats against the US" and what is interpreted by the masses (with a l ot of help from the different points of view on the media circus) is "DHS is looking for white folks as terrorists, and they aren't even stopping muslims or folks from the middle east at all!".

I can't speak for Ms. Napolitano, but from my POV, we are looking at intel from all available sources and attempting to address what appears to be viable threats (on the intel side mind you). Angry white loonies are exactly what they are, angry white loonies that may or may not be a threat - the trick is to evaluate the information you have and act in the best interest of the country, within the laws of the country. You were on the recieving end of intel in the military, many times it is not in keeping with it's name, while others it was dead on,right down to the color of the shoelaces on a guys boots. I have seen no focus on any specific race or ethnicity (or any other factor other than behaviors), nor have I been directed to look for any specifics (other than behaviors). I find it hard to believe that the intel branch has recieved any direction to focus on any specific group of folks without some sort of intel leading them to that group.

 

I agree 100%. Maybe this is a good place to bring up one of my (many) objections to the BDO (Behavior Detection Officer) program, and that it is culturally ignorant. For example, we are told that not looking the BDO in the eyes will be regarded as suspicious, yet to look someone in the eyes is considered a sign of disrespect in many cultures. And there is the slight problem of the fact that many people won't speak English anyway, so how can BDO, which we are told, requires responses to questions, even work there at all?

 

Nappy is a pathetic example of a person who should hold any position of responsibility. Under her leadership she has identified white, conservative, right to life, and I forget what other identities, as potential terrorist. No way to change what DHS has published in letters and internal documents.

A former soldier, postal worker, or any other person going off the reservation and killing a bunch of people is not a terrorist act. It's bad but not a terrorist act.

A terrorist act has the purpose of intimidating a group of people and bringing change to a way of life, kinda like what has happen since 9/11 and the invention of TSA.

I maintain the public has more reason to fear TSA than an unlikely terrorist event.

 

You forgot:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Samuel Adams
Paul Revere
Well, you get the idea...

 

Rebels yes, terrorists no. John Brown was a completely different type of person, killed innocent people for political reasons. Another terrorist of that time was Quantrill.

 

Yes, but I imagine that Janet Napolitano would view these Patriots as terrorists, just as King George did.

I certainly don't consider them terrorists...