Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Paranoia: DHS Domestic Targeting and Profiling

Ref Unable to find a defeatable enemy, the Americans hope to find among the ranks of the innocent and competent new suspects in their phony war on "excuse of the week."

___ Given the intelligence gaps in Iraq, it's questionable the US has the resources to have understood the documents, much less physically move them to a translator. Ref

It's one thing to bungle a foreign operation in Iraq; quite another to target those who dare to agree to cooperate with law enforcement.

For more exciting details of the ongoing investigation into local law enforcement problems with reckless compliance with police standards of conduct, click here.

Ref Other propaganda -- look at the links for other examples.

* * *

Credibility Problem

The documents located in Iraq are not credible. The plan, at best, appears to be linked with wishes of analysis attempting to make examples. The documents could have been retroactively created, and falsely asserted to have been planted in August 2006, while the documents were related to something else.

It would have been credible to have let the evidence built, not to have shut something down, without linking the students to a real event.

Rather than focusing on where the students are located, why isn't the US looking at what failed in the supposed screening process?

___ If this event were real, how does the US explain the abililty of "these people" to have gotten into the United States without detection?

___ Why not let the evidence develop, and let the world see exactly how "stupid" people were able to get through security; then fix those problems?

___ Why is the US putting a screening requirement on non-government entities?

___ What is the basis for the US government to absurdly do the following: Screen out the criminals; then screen out the innocent because of clean records? Using that approach, nobody will enter. If you're innocent, you are suspicious.

This sounds like another pile of documents the government is going to use to justify targeting innocent people who are going about innocuous, peaceful, lawful conduct. What's more outrageous is the US government and law enforcement can use this non-sense as more "justfication" to target new people who have nothing to with criminal activity.

Orwellian Non-Sense

Hay, the mere fact that they listened to us, and dared to agree to provide information we asked for, means that we can intrude into their lives; ask probin questions; and then make their cooperation match the "suspicious" profile.

___ Why would someone dare to cooperate?

___ Isn't their cooperation an excuse that they are guilty?

___ Is the fact that they are competent, evidence of their threat?

___ Is the possibilyt that they may be able to assist us evidence that they are a threat?

___ If we ask them to assist us byproviding details of suspecious behavior, can we use their response to then classify them as being engaged in intelligence gathering or suspicious behavior?

___ What if suspects are engaged in suspicous behavior: Should we use the fact that they continue as a basis to continue harassing them; or should we use the fact that they changed as the basis to harass them?

Using their rules, anything that law enforcement does not understand -- alot, since they are quick to jump to conclusions and assume the worst -- is the basis to begin an investigation. This is paranoia.

* * *

"Crisis management": they create a crisis, and expect untrained civilans to manage the law enforcement officer's insecurity problems. When does the law enforcement "Crisis management team" plan to go get some psychological counseling? Perhaps they should look in the mirror next time they start accusing people of mental problems; and ask: "Even if I didn't know something, is that any excfuse for me to act in an unprofessional manner; or publicly insinute someone has a mental problem"?

Law enforcement has a problem when it asks people to do something to assit; but then uses that freely-provided assistance as a basis to accuse the cooperative of "fitting the profile of someone who is suspicious."

Not only does the leadership ignore information; but they atively target those who might be able to provide them with information. Law enforcement enjoyes being manipulated.

This is how a government dumbs society down: Berating them until they are stupid; or treating them with disdain until they cooperate to not speak about the abuse.

This arrogant approach to law enforcement invites a simple vote of no-confidence: No reason to believe the assertions by anyone in law enforcement. You know they're lying when they move their lips.

* * *

Recall the FBI reports related to the attack on the Stadium: They were bogus and insubstantiated.

We judge the report is a meaningless effort by the intleligence community to justify targeting innocent civilians. Having run out of things to do, law enforcement wants to create excuses to target the remaining pool of people: Suspects who have clean records -- that could mean anyone.

Welcome to the law enforcement "make work" program. They're good at acting stupid; but they're also stupid.

So much for confidence in the American intelligence community: Bungling around, hoping to bumpg into something, and abuse those who dare to ask the simple question: Where were they prior to Sept 2001?

They weren't listenting then, and they're hoping to find scapegoats in 2007.

* * *

___ Why would the US announce the detection of something that was supposedly underway?

___ Why not let the suspects, if they exist, enter the US, and permit the suspects to get tracked?

* * *

Its meaningless to point to documents which may or may no be real. Discussions of criminal activity in the theoretical sense are meaningless.

Law enforcement cannot credibly point to a document that may or may not have been tampered with. They have nothing.

* * *

The big picture in Iraq is: The US has failed to find an excuse; nor has it a credible bass to launch combat operations. Having failed, been defeated, and proven incompetent, the US will have to face the music: It botched the combat operations in Iraq.

Having suffered defeat and unable to wage war aginst poorly organized insurgents, the US government has only one forum to wage warfare: Against American citizens with clean records. Stunning.

* * *

___ As with Somalia, why should we believe that the US government was really targeting an "alQueda" safe house?

The assertion appears absurd, and more of the baseless accusations. AlQueda is hardly a threat in Iraq or Afghanistan. THe problem is the active combat organizations by non-terror groups: Insurgents, unrelated to AlQueda; and local citizens in Afghanistan connected with the Taliban. Pretending that AlQueda is active in Iraq would ask us to believe more of the fiction prior to the Iraq invasion. Iraq may have AlQueda, but that does not mean that AlQueda is a meaningful threat.

* * *

Put aside the absurdity of teh claims, and focuse on the simple message: WHy would the US government disclose the existence of this activity; why not keep silent, let the plot develop; then provide the evidence to the court.

As with the alleged Iranian spy-translator in the British Miltary, the US shut down something which mayor may not be true. This smacks of more of the same as the Summer UK bombings which have been admitted to have been fabrications.

* * *

Consider the details of the release, and speculate who the US hopes to target:

If the incident is a "classified" issue, why is anyone talking about?

Why should we beleive that the issues -- if they are real -- were handled at the "highest levels" of the US government?

Why not say the obvious: The President believes releasing the information about this activity, despite his "concern" with leaks, hopes to accomplish something. Perhaps it is a diversion to put pressure on others, and pretend that the "US losses in Iraq" were related to US-based citizens. With enough non-sense Americans will soon demand the innocent to be put under surveillance.

* * *

___ What is the basis for the tracking?

___ Why isn't this tracking handled through immigration?

___ WHy is the US government using private firms to do things that may not be needed?

When commercial firms have to do the business of government, this is the same as facism, especially when the plot is dubious.

* * *

If the activities were real, and they did occur in August2006, the President needs to explain why he didn' release the information before the election.

Need to follow-up with Montana State University to find out if the plot is real.