The whole point, as far as I'm concerned, is there are 700,000 people being inconvenienced (close friends of mine - she's Persian, he's Moroccan - are on that list and lemme tell ya, it's not a transparent thing), persecuted and otherwise hassled and the list isn't even good enough to flag someone for "hey maybe we ought to watch this guy more closely." If it can't do that, what is it doing, exactly? It's not like maintaining a database of three quarters of a million potential terrorists is free or easy. there's money and effort being spent there. What's the point? I thought if we had people on watch lists, they were being "watched." Now it appears that they're not "watch" lists but "black" lists, which in the case of an extremist who feels persecuted for his race or religious identity, can only fuel the fire. Terrorists aren't 3rd-worlders from Waziristan, they're educated and disaffected young men who grow up surrounded by privilege they can't partake in. In this case, that "watch" list isn't just useless, it's actually harmful.
Here's the thing about this Boston situation, though -- as far as I can tell the CIA really didn't have any reason to put Tsarnaev on a black list except that the Russians had an eye on him, which if he's Chechen barely means anything. He should have been on a watch list, probably (although putting people on watch solely for their nationality is a hazy path that ends in internment camps). So yes, the watch list is a dangerous joke and it's good that this issue put some light on it and so on. But with regard to Tsarnaev, I don't think there's much blame to be put on them. It's just one of those things that happens.Now it appears that they're not "watch" lists but "black" lists
Exactly, and I'm sorry for your friends. I have some close Pakistani friends with family ties to the their government who go home every few years; I'm 100 percent sure they're on that list.
To clarify - I'm not blaming anyone (other than the Tsarnaev brothers). It is my studied opinion that idealistic terrorism is invariably the actions of lone players or small groups of disconnected individuals united by ideology. I'm arguing that the approach of "watch everybody" is a demonstrable failure and should therefore be retired in order to focus on approaches less Orwellian in nature. I suspect that if you asked the average rank'n'file law enforcement officer, they would tell you that "watch everybody" is impossible, is expensive, is inconvenient, and tends to force "data-driven" investigation rather than "lead-driven" investigation.
Okay, yeah. I agree (although I can see the similar argument that "watch every place" is impossible in the offing). To me, it's all about selectivity on both counts. It's something I'm becoming increasingly interested in. Anyway, as far as alternative solutions go, "lead-driven" investigation is a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think? Some leads come from surveillance, few as they may be. If "watch everybody" doesn't work, it's our responsibility to make sure we have a better idea before we scrap the Orwellian approach.
Not really. Warrants are not difficult to get. "We want to watch this guy because he talked to a guy who talked to a guy who blew up a bus in tel aviv." "We want to watch this guy because he petitioned his cable company to carry Al Jazeera." "We want to watch this guy because his cousin is Osama Bin Laden." What we've got now is "we want to watch the following 700,000 people because." If you start from what you know and work your way in, you get very different results if you start with a statistical analysis and work your way out. Not everyone named Moammar who lives in Detroit and speaks ill of the Invasion of Iraq is worthy of monitoring, which is why they get added to a list.Anyway, as far as alternative solutions go, "lead-driven" investigation is a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think?
"We want to watch this guy because he's from Chechnya"? Dangerous territory. I can't shake the feeling that a lot of these guys, especially ones who commit deliberate acts of terror, are trained to keep their heads down. Sure, you've got the ones that spout off on message boards, but that can't be the majority, can it? And what about all the shooters whose families say afterward, "this is insane, how could this have been my nice level-headed nephew" etc? There are a lot of holes in your solution, and a lot of holes in our current system.
A while back Hasan Elahi stopped by Hubski and talked a bit about his experience being on the watch list. As you may already know, his response was to start a site that gives 24/7 updates on where he is, what he buys and eats etc so that the FBI need not hassle him. It's a great commentary on the ridiculousness of the situation. I think b_b said it well in the comments "Its simultaneous mocking and capitulating to the New World Order." Care to elaborate on some of the inconveniences your friends have experienced? I dont doubt that they occur, im genuinely curious as to what they amount to. My guess is they are mostly travel related.
Entirely travel-related. Here's where things went completely around the bend with the TSA... We won't even get started on the piano.
At least they're in good company, Donnie Darko was a great film.