3 ms·

How many people were caught and not publicized? I think it's fairly impressive, all things considered, that after two IEDs went off in a crowded civilian area,

by bennyg 14y ago

How many people were caught and not publicized? I think it's fairly impressive, all things considered, that after two IEDs went off in a crowded civilian area, only 3 people died. And that in less than a week, those responsible were killed or apprehended. Now, I'm not pushing for a surveillance state at all. I hate everything about that notion, and I believe that what we have now is plenty adequate - if not overkill - for doing the job that needs to be done to protect our own civilians. Again, all that said, America is in a much better place when it comes to domestic "terrorism" if you will (that connotation sucks, but they were terrorizing the populous after all) than say Syria or other countries.

magic_haze 14y ago
What incentive does a department have to hide an attack they helped prevent? Publicizing it, on the other hand, brings massive clout and more bargaining power when it comes to budgets. Look at Canada's recent announcement, for example. Why would the US government be any different?
- rosser 14y ago
  What incentive does a department have to hide an attack they helped prevent? Operational security. Announcing that you've foiled a Bad Guy plot lets the bad guys know you're onto them. More to the point, it gives them valuable, actionable information on what parts of their operation you've likely compromised. See also: the Coventry Blitz. Granted, that motive implies a much higher level of coordination between these agencies than TFA suggests exists, but it's among the reasons for these folks to keep mum about having done their job.
rdtsc 14y ago
> How many people were caught and not publicized? I can see two conflicting issues here. One is the need for the agencies to justify their existence. If they exist to stop terrorists, and they feel there is public scrutiny of their budgets, they should publicize the hell out of every capture. "See, we are doing useful work, look! we captured these people red-handed with bombs about to go off!". The other one is not giving away their methods, procedures and tactics by keeping it a secret who they captured. Say NSA is wiretapping everyone and someone calls their cousin and asks them to buy 2 tons of fertilizer and a detonator. Ok, now they are on a blacklist. But arresting them right there and then is a pretty sure giveaway of the surveillance capabilities and a lesson for other perhaps more real and dangerous bad guys to learn. Now actually there is a third, and more disturbing issue at hand. And that is agencies going and conjuring terrorists where there are none. Think about it, their budgets, salaries and bonuses are based on capturing terrorists. If there are no terrorists, should we be surprised if they start "creating" them? Take the example of Craig Monteilh, FBI informant that joins a mosque in Irvine, CA then goes ahead and starts recruiting radicals. "Recruiting" was more like inciting hatred. Eventually he was reported to FBI (oh the irony!), FBI was sued but lawsuit was thrown out based on "secrecy" claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_Irvine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_Irvine Then there is a case where they caught "terrorists" about to blow a bridge up in Ohio. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/brandon-l-baxter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/brandon-l-baxter All the details of it seems shady. There is a gray area between entrapment and undercover operations and I think with right type of people (read those who are mentally unstable) it doesn't take much effort to entrap them and still stay outside the legal definition of the word. The point being that at some point we should not be surprised if agencies with hundred million dollar budgets that are told to look for terrorists (and remember according to the post 9/11 propaganda they are _everywhere_) will go start making terrorists were they are none.

by bennyg 14y ago

magic_haze 14y ago

What incentive does a department have to hide an attack they helped prevent? Publicizing it, on the other hand, brings massive clout and more bargaining power when it comes to budgets. Look at Canada's recent announcement, for example. Why would the US government be any different?

rosser 14y ago
What incentive does a department have to hide an attack they helped prevent? Operational security. Announcing that you've foiled a Bad Guy plot lets the bad guys know you're onto them. More to the point, it gives them valuable, actionable information on what parts of their operation you've likely compromised. See also: the Coventry Blitz. Granted, that motive implies a much higher level of coordination between these agencies than TFA suggests exists, but it's among the reasons for these folks to keep mum about having done their job.

rdtsc 14y ago

> How many people were caught and not publicized? I can see two conflicting issues here. One is the need for the agencies to justify their existence. If they exist to stop terrorists, and they feel there is public scrutiny of their budgets, they should publicize the hell out of every capture. "See, we are doing useful work, look! we captured these people red-handed with bombs about to go off!". The other one is not giving away their methods, procedures and tactics by keeping it a secret who they captured. Say NSA is wiretapping everyone and someone calls their cousin and asks them to buy 2 tons of fertilizer and a detonator. Ok, now they are on a blacklist. But arresting them right there and then is a pretty sure giveaway of the surveillance capabilities and a lesson for other perhaps more real and dangerous bad guys to learn. Now actually there is a third, and more disturbing issue at hand. And that is agencies going and conjuring terrorists where there are none. Think about it, their budgets, salaries and bonuses are based on capturing terrorists. If there are no terrorists, should we be surprised if they start "creating" them? Take the example of Craig Monteilh, FBI informant that joins a mosque in Irvine, CA then goes ahead and starts recruiting radicals. "Recruiting" was more like inciting hatred. Eventually he was reported to FBI (oh the irony!), FBI was sued but lawsuit was thrown out based on "secrecy" claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_Irvine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_Irvine Then there is a case where they caught "terrorists" about to blow a bridge up in Ohio. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/brandon-l-baxter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/brandon-l-baxter All the details of it seems shady. There is a gray area between entrapment and undercover operations and I think with right type of people (read those who are mentally unstable) it doesn't take much effort to entrap them and still stay outside the legal definition of the word. The point being that at some point we should not be surprised if agencies with hundred million dollar budgets that are told to look for terrorists (and remember according to the post 9/11 propaganda they are _everywhere_) will go start making terrorists were they are none.