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.