karmaKGB on 21/4/2013 at 19:39
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
The Russian authorities had told the FBI that Tamerlan was growing more radical. And that he could be able to commit a terrorist act. The mother of the boys has said in an interview that the FBI had been monitoring Tamerlan for 3-5 years. (I think I heard their Aunt say the same thing). Mother, Aunt, Uncle had all been interviewed by the FBI about Tamerlan.
Nice job, FBI.
Laws are changed. People's basic rights are being violated. Not only in the US, but everywhere. I've lost at least 5 little nailclipping scissors at airports. I had to take off my shoes in public a zillion times. There's cameras hanging on every streetcorner in some countries. Kids growing up seem to be brainwashed that basic privacy is of least importance. For what ?
When the FBI gets direct information about a potential criminal, they fuck up. Just like they had been warned about the guys who flew into the WTC. Maybe time to install a camera in everyone's livingroom and bedroom ?
That's the trick, isn't it? Finding a way to stop terrorists (or any other psychos) before they commit horrendous acts WITHOUT violating "basic rights", as you say. If the FBI were to have arrested him years ago... wouldn't that have been violating a basic right? On what charges? Should they have held him in Guantanamo for the rest of his life? For watching radical screeds on Youtube? If so... how many thousands of others would they also have to arrest on the same basis?
I guess what I'm saying is: safety is an illusion, always. It's a fine line to walk and I don't think they always get it right. The confiscating nail clippers and shampoo should probably stop and the surveillance of people regularly watching crazy shit on the internet should probably increase (I think that'd be the most appropriate response to this) but I don't want it to swing too far one way or the other.
Right?
Queue on 21/4/2013 at 19:47
I say we preemptively kill absolutely everybody in case they may do something later. And I know they will, I've been watching. Especially in their bathrooms.
Gryzemuis on 21/4/2013 at 21:52
Quote Posted by karmaKGB
Finding a way to stop terrorists (or any other psychos) before they commit horrendous acts WITHOUT violating "basic rights", as you say.
I'm not saying anyone should be arrested just because someone else said something.
But I'd like the authorities to just observe the people who are truly "suspects". (I'm sorry, my English isn't good enough to come up with the perfect word here).
Authorities (esp the US) seem to like keeping track of everything about everyone. And then they can data-mine and do statistics and play around. But a) I don't think that's very effective, b) it's undermining the privacy of average innocent citizens, and c) they should put their time and effort into monitoring the people who are notable more likely to do something. Like when they were warned about the WTC hijackers. Like when they were warned about this kid.
They don't need to be arrested. And I certainly don't suggest to arrest people who haven't done anything. But as an exampe, in my country our security agency kept an eye on a group of young local muslims (born here) who were planning attacks. They arrested them before they could act. But they did have guns, bombs, etc in their appartment. Enough to put them in jail for a decade.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstad_Network)
I don't mind the authorities monitoring (true) suspects. I do mind authorities monitoring their own civilians, even where there are no (or hardly) any suspicions. E.g. my country (nl) does the most phone-taps in the world. In 2008 we did 26000 taps (in a country with 17M people). The US (350M people) did 2200 taps. Stuff like that bothers me. I read 1984 when I was a kid. 1984 was in the future then. Sometimes I feel we gotten much further than what Orwell imagined.
SubJeff on 21/4/2013 at 23:46
The thing is we only hear about the failures. We've no idea how many criminals they catch before they blow something up.
heywood on 22/4/2013 at 05:40
Anyone remember Tarek Mehanna, the young American muslim who was convicted and sentenced in Boston in 2011? He got 17.5 years in prison for promoting jihad on the internet. I still think the charges against Mehanna and the sentence were wildly overblown since he committed little more than a thought crime. Until a week ago, I might have thought the same thing about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. So I think it's too early say the FBI dropped the ball. Based on the info available now, I don't think FBI had adequate justification to wiretap his phone or install surveillance devices in his apartment, and it would take that kind of surveillance to uncover this plot.
The tragedy in Boston hits home with me because I lived there for 10+ years and a lot of friends were in the race (none hurt thankfully). But as bad as the bombings were, the threat is not sufficient to justify a surveillance state. It's way too easy for the security apparatus of the state to be misused for political aims, so the justification for expanding it has to be a grave threat.
I also commend the law enforcement agents involved for identifying & tracking down the Tsarnaev brothers so quickly. Between the Boston PD, Mass State Police, MIT police, FBI, and who knows who else, they did a really impressive job.
Jason Moyer on 23/4/2013 at 11:33
For the "u don't know if it had anything 2 do wit Islam!!!111" crew:
(
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/us/boston-attack/index.html)
Quote:
Tsarnaev has conveyed to investigators that Tamerlan's motivation was that of jihadist thought and the idea that Islam is under attack and jihadists need to fight back, the source said.
faetal on 23/4/2013 at 11:57
Am I missing something, or does this mean that prior to that information being released, people did know it had something to do with Islam?
Dia on 23/4/2013 at 12:21
"
As to what drove Tamerlan to violence, his younger brother has apparently told investigators it was his hatred of America, and its policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, law enforcement sources said." ((
http://gma.yahoo.com/simple-boston-bomb-plot-hatched-without-foreign-help-082418368--abc-news-topstories.html))
And yet they stayed here, lived in the U.S., furthered their education, and because it's a democracy enjoyed the freedom everyone else here enjoys (okay - I know our freedom and rights are being steadily infringed upon ever since 9/11, but that's a whole other can of worms and you get my point) and the younger brother even went as far as becoming a U.S. citizen. This is one of those things that makes me nuts. It worries me to know that there are probably thousands of people in this country who share the sentiments of those wannabe-terrorists and who could do some serious damage, cause more trauma and grief. Someone in this thread (too lazy to go back & find out who) said something to the effect that we'll never know of all the plots the FBI & other law enforcement agencies have foiled to date. I hope the FBI really are on their toes, because the Tsarnaev brothers just chalked up a win for the terrorists and illustrated how damned easy it is to commit murder and mayhem in the name of Allah with little more than a pressure cooker and ball bearings.
Jason's post reminded me of a post I read in the comment section of one of the other articles about the Boston bombing wherein the poster demanded that all 'foreigners' be kicked out of the U.S. so that 'we can be sure this won't happen again'. I felt compelled to remind her that our country was built by 'foreigners'; that the only people native to this country were the American Indians and if she were to research her family's history she'd discover that somewhere along the line her ancestors were immigrants like those of everybody else. I also pointed out that we've had our share of home-grown terrorists (Timothy McVeigh, etc.) so becoming an isolationist country wouldn't really solve anything. Mentalities like that of said commentor and the ones ignorantly directing their rants at the Czech Republic scare me as much as the thought of how many potential terrorists there may be living here in the U.S.
Where the fuck is Batman when you really need him?
Specter on 23/4/2013 at 13:25
What has been ever increasingly maddening to me is the lack of simple understanding by so-called experts regarding this "Russian/Chechen link". What people (and I mean people that should know better: 'experts' in the news) consistently seem to not understand that they are talking about two entirely different things when talking about Chechnya and Radical Islam in the North Caucasus.
The Chechen wars were, initially, about forming a more autonomous Republic. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many of the Republics making up the new Russia received differing levels of autonomy. A prime example is Tartarstan: an largely Islamic territory that is happily part of the Russian Federation now. For various reasons, the Chechens were not to be given what they sought and were willing to fight for it.
The radical Islamic elements came in during the wars. Some Chechen leaders thought that if they could make it a religious fight, and not a nationalistic one, they could draw on support from other parts of the Muslim world, much as the Mujahadin did in Afghanistan. It worked, somewhat.
Today, Chechnya is largely peaceful, in relative terms. The leader of the Republic, supported by Moscow, is a strong-man who is notoriously heavy handed. This is the same guy that had a Hollywood actress come to his birthday party. (Was that Natalie Portman?) Grozny is being rebuilt, and one can travel through it and be less crazy than times past. However, the Islamic radicalism never left and is now causing a lot of problems in the neighboring territories, especially in Dagestan. This is the key though: there are countless (and by countless, I mean an helluva lot) of ethnic groups in that tiny portion of the world and the radicals come from each group.
So, while these idiots in Boston are ethnically Chechen, it does not mean that these guys have a link to Chechen nationalism, or that this is tied to any Chechen movement, or that it even has anything to do with the radical wish to establish an Islamic republic throughout the Caucasus and Southern Russia. They may sympathize with the ideologies of international terrorist groups, but really are just domestic terrorists. That's why they are not considered enemy combatants. They likely found or knew people with similar opinions in Southern Russia, but they are not part of anything remotely organized.
I just wish some people in the media might consult with people who actually know about these things.
