3 ms·
> 42 arrested and convicted suspects I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the article said anything about convictions. The 42 "terrorism suspects" had their
by pdkl95 10y ago
> 42 arrested and convicted suspects
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the article said anything about convictions. The 42 "terrorism suspects" had their call records etc. sent to the NSA under court order. There isn't even mention of a trial. Was there due process? Was they considered innocent after reading the call record data? We don't know anything other than the NSA claims some people were "terrorist suspects", the FISA court granted a warrant, and phone records were collected.
> who were likely to commit violent acts at some point
That's an unwarranted assumption. All we know is some people were labeled a "terrorist suspect". Even if the investigation was for a violent act, they are suspects; no guilt has been established.
A larger problem is your assumption that "terrorism" implies "likely to commit violent acts". That hasn't been true for some time. Drug trafficking[1] and the Occupy protests[2] were both "terrorism" according to the FBI. The term "terrorism" was diluted down to meaning "crime some people find frightening". The TLAs tend to use it now mostly for funding/budget purposes, as yet another "think of children!".
[1] https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/international-drug-trafficking-and-terrorism https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/internation...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2355883.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/fbi-occupy-wall-str...
- olivermarks 10y ago"The U.S. government has prosecuted 796 people for terrorism since the 9/11 attacks. Most of them never even got close to committing an act of violence." https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/ https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/
- cryptarch 10y agoImagine they would've each killed 50 citizens on average. I think that's a very high estimate. I think 5/terrorist would be high, but lets pad the estimates. That's 40.000 deaths since 9/11. Was it worth it? Was that worth harming your culture, making your country more hostile to vistors and citizens alike, while spending (very roughly) $660.000.000.000[0] on "counter-terrorism"? Couldn't that money have been used more effectively, for instance on cancer research or programs to reduce obesity? 40k deaths over 16 years is nothing. It's how many Americans kill themselves in a year, while orders of magnitude more Americans die of heart failure, diabetes and cancer. And that's a very high estimate of the additional deaths-by-terrorist that might have potentially been prevented, maybe. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/11/u-s-spends-over-16-billion-annually-on-counter-terrorism/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/11/u-s-spends-o...