FBI Investigates Open Records Request 860
GrooveMoose writes "A university student at the University of Texas
makes an open
records request for information on the underground tunnel system at the school.
A few months later the FBI and Secret Service come knocking on his door to see
if he's a terrorist. He's still under investigation by the federal government
regarding a completely open request."
What's UT Watch? (Score:4, Interesting)
Terrorists attack... (Score:3, Interesting)
xx ben.
I know this guy... (Score:5, Interesting)
[04/13 00:16] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Ah.
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> District Attorney Office. Forgot to go by that.
[04/13 00:17] <@dyfrgi> Why do you want/need to?
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To file a writ of mandumus against UT Austin.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They are ignoring one of my open records request.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To find out how much they pay for their Internet service.
[04/13 00:18] <@mspencer> "one of"?
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Okay, several of.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They initiall complied.
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Now they're ignoring me hoping I'll go away.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> I'm surprised you've filed even one open records request, let alone several.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> What are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Er?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Why are you suprised?
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> I mean, as long as you're being adult about it, and making sure your need for the data is worth the time they need to put into filling those requests.
[04/13 00:20] <@dyfrgi> Writ of Mandumus?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> mspencer,
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> So what are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To satiate my curiousity.
[04/13 00:21] <@Mirell[Mobile]> I'm not sure if that's how you spell it, dyfrgi.
[04/13 00:21] <@mspencer> Do you think those requests are having any kind of negative effect on the University or its staff?
[04/13 00:21] <@dyfrgi> I'm just wondering what it is.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Let's see...I requested initially any contracts or invoices detailing the cost the University entails in gaining Internet connectivity.
[04/13 00:22] <@dyfrgi> Mm. I assume you want to file a petition for a writ of madamus.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then I filed another one for something they withheld on an invoice.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then another one for another thing they left out..
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Classroom Web Cams they deny knowledge of
[04/13 00:23] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Information Security Council briefs, since we had the Social Security Number scare.
[04/13 00:24] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say by "Negative Affect" when they have a position who's sole purpose is to manage Open Records Requests.
[04/13 00:25] <@dyfrgi> I think he is implying that you should not ask, because it costs money for them to tell you.
[04/13 00:25] <@mspencer> I was deliberately vague: any effect, emotional or financial or otherwise, that is more significant than the benefit you get from satisfying your curiosity.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> No.
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> hopefully there isn't one, but if there is, I'd like to think you considered that.
[04/13 00:26] <@bl0d> i dunno, i'd really be curious about the Webcam one...that's just fucked up...
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> Ah, OK then.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=620962
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They pull crap like this as well.
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And this: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=657367
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[
Legitimate reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe it is for a computer network (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legitimate reasons (Score:2, Interesting)
Long Term Effects (Score:5, Interesting)
Interviewer "So have you ever been convicted of a felony"
Mark "No"
Interviewer "Have you ever been investigated for terrorist activites?"
Mark "well.. there was this one time in college..."
Interviewer "OK thanks we'll call you" (calls security)
I've seen comments saying "he could have denied the meeting or walked away". I'm sure that wouldn't inflame the agents curiosity even more. The question about the ACLU was really out of line. Personally I think he should join the ACLU before making any other requests and then pull the card out if any other agents stop by.
the sentiment that I have to agree with is American citizens making FOIA requests should NOT trigger investigations.
Are you in a two party consent state? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is another excuse to hassle average citizens (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, the main point I was trying to make is that there are SO many ways that the kid could have gotten this info, besides doing it the proper way. He could have explored some/most of those areas himself, MIT style, learning how to "access" locks and the like in the process, and no one would have been the wiser. This blanket "we've got to protect people from terrorists" crap is getting to be an excessive excuse for anything the current administration doesn't like. Yes, there are bad people in the world who don't like us, and some are already inside the US, but come ON. And I'm saying this as a member of the US Armed Forces, protecting their right to use this excuse. Go figure.
Most campuses have underground tunnel networks (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Why not. Tunnels were one of / the main motivators behind the now imfamous MIT Guide to Lockpicking, and it's not that far of a stretch to see why someone would be interested in getting a map. Maybe the kid just wanted to read them, but come on, if you REALLY wanted to know, those tunnels are ventilated above ground and it would take all of 15 seconds to gain entry and map it out that way, with string if need be.
Maybe this isn't that big a deal, but it's on the top of a damp moss covered slope. You better be careful, because there are worse things than being eaten by a grue.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
But then: why did they both refuse FOI's on what they have already gathered about Mr. Miller? Shouldn't he be entitled to that?
So what I'm seeing is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure. I understand why he might be curious. It does seem like a way to draw attention to oneself. And I don't see why the university wouldn't just deny the request with a perfectly reasonable comment about security.
Okay: Someone is asking for information on infrastructure that could be exploited in a terrorist attack. I do wonder why they didn't just call the police/sheriff, but perhaps they naturally pass potential terrorist threats to the FBI.
I don't much like this. Are they saying that UT Watch might be planning terrorist attacks? If they are, then does it make sense to let the organization know that they know? (If this guy had been with UT Watch, pow, they know they're being tracked; if not, why wouldn't he mention the questioning to others?) Or are they just idly trying to find out if there might be a connections? Or are they completely clueless because they are a national law enforcement unit trying to follow up on a local group?
This is odd, too: The obvious answer is "We hand suspicious requests for infrastructure information to the police for further investigation, and they're free to share that with other law enforcement agencies." I'd HOPE that's what they'd do, in fact, and would feel more comfortable if that was their answer. But "I dunno"?
Overall, I'd call it disconcerting, but not really that big a deal. Am I in the minority here?
TSG
Kudos to Mark - Scary though (Score:5, Interesting)
But
Why did they handle it like that? (Score:2, Interesting)
You would think that the situation could have been handled by the FBI in 1 of 2 ways.
1) Allow the information, apply surveillance. using the ample US budget they should be able to determine without a reasonable doubt what this kid is upto and take him under coustody and let the legal system do what it does best.
2) Disallow the information and the surveillancething.
Why would they freak out on the kid and come up with nothing?
That doesn't seem right to me are they panicing? Do they know what they are doing? Being much more powerful then a post-secondary grad, you would hope that US would have a better idea of what is going on.
We always bitch about all of our rights taken away for Homeland Security but what are they really doing?
If I were king... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, my government's power would not be the product of my people, but rather would be the product of myself. Freedom would be a priveledge extended by the state, not by the Almighty Creator. In fact, if any religious propaganda, such as a plaque of the Ten Commandments, be found anywhere, said propaganda would immediately be removed.
Second, everybody would be my slave. Nobody would be allowed to do anything without government approval in the form of licenses (from driver licenses to business permits to rental unit occupation permits), because otherwise they would be considered terrorists and would have all of their property seized for my use.
Third, a tax system would be put into effect to steal half of everybody's income, from a numeric standpoint. I would pass legislation to make it extremely difficult to purchase and own property, and renters would be affected by high prices because their landlords would similarly have to make ends meet. Thus, with this tax system and property ownership legislation, both parents would have to work very hard to feed their children, and would be so concerned with making ends meet that they would ignore the above, because there are more pressing matters (food) to worry about. (The same tax system would further benefit me by providing detailed information, down to the finest detail, of everybody's business, because they would need to detail the source of every penny of income, and back it up with evidence. Failure to do this would constitute a felony, and would be selectively enforced to strike fear into peoples' hearts.) To steal the other half of everybody's money, the money itself would not be backed by anything of value. Thus it would be easy to continuously print money, thereby constantly increasing the total amount in circulation. This way, my government would steal the peoples' money, without reducing the amount they have from a numeric standpoint, by stealing the value of their money.
Fourth, the educational system would basically turn out people who can barely read, so they won't be smart enough to figure out what I'm doing to them.
Fifth, there would be propaganda all over the place telling people how free they are, etc.
That's how I'd run a government, if I were the king of my own country.
what is really disturbing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legitimate reasons (Score:2, Interesting)
Reminds me of a fellow I knew in the Vietnam Era. (Score:5, Interesting)
His use of a university's computer while a high school student (something he got started on as a guinea pig in a University program doing research on learning and teaching) had attracted the attention of the FBI.
A couple years later he decided to use the shiny-new FOIA to see what records the FBI and the state and local cops had on him. And while he was at it, he sent FOIA requests to several other agencies.
The first one he sent to the CIA was a classic self-referential hack: He requested their internal document describing their procedure for responding to FOIA requests. B-) (Obviously useful for generating the next round of requests, too.)
Needless to say the agencies involved didn't respond as required by the law. So with the aid of a Libertarian lawyer he started suing them. He won, and they eventually were ordered to give him what he asked for. Then they flaked on that, too, and he got a contempt citation and more court orders. Eventually he got much of his info (with big chunks blacked out). Then he sued them for his lawyer's fees and won that, too.
After a few iterations of this he was sitting on quite a number of interesting documents. So he started a newspaper to give them wider circulation and created a business of generating FOIA requests and publishing the results. This became quite popular with the CIA watcher, privacy advocate, private detective, and tinfoil-hat sets. Advertising revenue flowed in from such folk as buging and debugging equipment manufacturers.
At one point he got the petty cash records from a New York area CIA office. Items he found in it charged to one project (air compressor, flit guns, briefcase, auto exhaust system, washing a car) led to blowing the lid off a project to obtain information on how a biowarfare plague might spread in an urban environment by exposing the citizens of New York City to a "mostly harmless" bug that caused severe enough respiratory system symptoms that it could be tracked by hospital admissions. (Spread techniques included spraying subways with the bug from the gimmicked briefcase and spraying commuter traffic via the car's exhaust system.)
He also got hold of and published one year's version of the IRS procedures manual. And put out a pamphlet on how to use the FOIA. (Eventually he was enjoined from distributing either of these.)
Eventually the FOIA was modified to give the security agencies some loopholes against such requests.
Bob Dylan had something to say about this: "You have to pay to keep from going through these things twice." Also Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time
He's still out there doing stuff like this, by the way. Last time he looked he had a web site dedicated to exposing personal information trading in the information age.
The above-mentioned kid was part of the Boomer's round. I guess now it's Generation X's (or maybe Y's) turn to pay some dues. (Sigh.)
Re:Are you in a two party consent state? (Score:4, Interesting)
Washington State prohibits recording conversations between two parties unless everyone agrees. That applies to party lines as well (potential public forums).
That is the foundation that some states are using to attack IRC logging. The conversation is carried over regulated carriers within the states.
Intent (Score:4, Interesting)
My brother is an ex-pat - works all over the world - and a few years before 9/11, on a visit home he said *people in this country have no idea how loose our security is viewed worldwide. Something big will happen and the attitudes in the country will change forever*. That was about the time of the Oklahoma City bombings, when - if you were watching the first reports and speculations - everyone believed it *had* to an international organization. Palestine got the first blame - then nobody really woke up to the idea that people in our country could be every bit as extremist as is *others* are portayed in a xenophobic cultural lens.
I am generally very suspicious of all these government investigations - they make me uneasy in too many ways because the Patriot Act has been too loosely applied in ways that have already been well reported - and in fact have become good sport - as they should be in an open and free society.
Had the request had some intent - like the student was an architecture major - technically - not that he had to be to make the request, I think this would have just faded away very quickly.
I wonder though if a large group of individuals - say if a group as large as that as subscribe to
Re:Long Term Effects (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Never give true reasons but plausible ones inst (Score:2, Interesting)
---
Umm...dude, I don't care enough to fight it. It was IRC, I did not think I would get Slashdotted.
In the example given, he should have said that he was gathering information in the public interest. (This reason is even true and therefore irrefutable: he's a member of the public and he's interested, therefore it must be in the public interest.) Another thing one could say is anything using corporate doublespeak. The eyes of thine listener shall glazeth over: and thou shalt be as slippery as an eel in thy escape from unwelcome scrutiny.
---
No...I just wanted to know how flippin' big the tunnels were. That's all.
Re:US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent an entire day trying find someone who might take my report seriously... This inclded finding out that 'terrorist hotlines' were closed only a few months after they were opened to big fanfare, and being bounced around by people who had absolutely no idea what to do with my data.
I finally talked to someone who seemed entirely nonplussed with my information.
Now, in my world, I was dealing with someone who was -- at the very least -- borderline suicidal. Even if it was only his life at stake, I figure that people should be trying to hunt him down and make sure that he was OK. Given that there was other infomation that led me to believe that this could be a bit more than 'just' a suicidal kid, the unwillingness of anybody to take this information seriously really left me pissed.
If the government is going to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade oilfields and investigate people for membership in human rights organizations (like they did this kid), then I'm not interested.
Most of the nastiest human rights violations on this continent have been comitted by the right ring, not the left wing...
From the KKK, to Pinkerman's hired thugs gunning down strikers to the Oklahoma bombing.
And they're asking this kid if he's a member of friggin UT watch??? [thebatt.com]. They're far more interested in fighting tuitin fee hikes and questionable firings [utwatch.org] than they are in blowing up campus buildings (which would raise tuition).
Give me a break!
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
None of these people really felt harmed by us, even in their own heads. The motivation is more along the lines of a script kiddie. The US is the target because it's the greatest challenge. The logic of the attacks isn't to cause damage, death, or even really fear. It's more the elegence of the plan itself that's the deciding factor. Hence the embassies exploding simultaneously and trying to film your exploding tugboats. There's no reason to do that, other than that it's cool.
That's pretty much Ramzi Yousef's fault. He's tough to understand, but he's the guy behind pretty much everything big Al Quaeda's ever done and/or tried. The first WTC bombing, the dozen simultaneous exploding airliners crashing into the CIA building at midnight on New Years, and then sticking those two together, 9/11. This is why Osama looked so much like just a fundraiser up until recently. You have trained engineers coming up with crazy shit like that, and then you also have tens of thousands of 6th-grade-educated gun-nuts from the Arab equivailent of Michigan running around doing obstacle courses and then training random bunches of people in what are essentially US military tactics. They end up meshing pretty damn well, but it's not intuitive.
This is why Al Quaeda gets so much attention. They're just very, very good at blowing shit up and killing people, and they have no ideology. It's "the base", the vision is that they teach anybody who wants to know how to cause as much damage as is humanly possible. The Anarchist's Cookbook transformed into a university with grant money and facilities and everything.
Because that's there (and it just moved in with the Pashtuns now, invading Afghanistan did about shit) it's doubly important not to piss anybody off. It's ok to kill Luke's dad as long as you're the Empire, but once fucking Obi-Wan is hanging around in the caves in western Pakistan handing out free lightsabres and midichlorians to every dumbass that wanders in, you better make damn sure not to give anybody a reason to head down there.
not the first time (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure about the coersion. (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'm wondering about is why TWO agents had to meet with this guy to discuss this.
For everyone who does NOT understand, there are a limited number of agents (FBI, CIA, SS, etc). The more agents handling what are BLATANTLY obvious cases of non-terrorist activity, the FEWER agents doing any actual anti-terrorist work.
You are correct. If any investigation was done, it should have been done quickly and quietly. They can find his major. They can find what classes he's taken. They can find if he has any police record. They do not need to waste the time of two agents.
Re:So what you are saying is (Score:4, Interesting)
About the tunnels... (Score:3, Interesting)
Had it not been for this covert entry, he'd probably still be up there. Well..., I guess he would have ordered out for pizza at some point.
g
Unique instance gets the most press. (Score:4, Interesting)
The fertilizer bomb was a unique instance. Every day, millions of people go about their lives in the US without building a fertilizer bomb.
Yet that single instance is used by people who feel threatened to justify any amount of governmental "protection".
If you live in the US and are NOT in a combat zone, you are STATISTICALLY more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
What you're seeing is a fear reaction. Fear does NOT understand statistics. Fear does NOT take reasonable precautions.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll post it. Here's a short list of events [google.com] in recent history of events during which the US directly harmed nationals of other countries. Now why am I having to post easy to find and read US history? Did you honestly know nothing of these events?
You were probably honestly suprised at the events of 9/11. The only thing that suprised me were how many people never expected the people we've harmed through the decades to do anything about it.
Regards,
Ross
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment that terrorism and a police state are at different ends of the same spectrum. My reasoning is that terror is terror whether perpetuated by the state or individuals; creating a police state to counter the threat to individuals from non-state terror is an essentially irrational response driven by the myth that the state is inherently trustworthy. A glance at the history books should convince us that this is not the case: far more people have died or spent their lives in fear of persecution due to state terror than have died or been oppressed due to a few extremist nutters fighting against the mainstream of society.
I would suggest that there it is the elements of civil society that are far more useful as a yardstick against which to judge the issue of terrorism and the state. This runs contrary to the 'too much freedom leads to terrorists running wild' theory: instead, it is more important that a society have extremely strong and well defined laws to control the interaction between the state and the individual, and the way the fight against terrorism occurs plays out against this backdrop.
So, for example, Russia has virtually no civil institutions or rule of law, placing it far from the centre of my ideal state. It citizens are threatened by both terrorism and the government's jackbooted (and increasingly uncontrolled) response to terror. See for example, Chechnya, the theatre siege last year, the shutdown of non-state media, and the general consensus that the KGB is basically still operating in new forms in the Kremlin.
By contrast, many European nations such as Germany, Britain and Spain have very strong rule of law and civil legal institutions. Britain has lived with the problem of terrorism for many years thanks to the northern ireland situation, likewise Spain thanks to Eta. Nonetheless, these countries retain a high level of civil liberties (although Britain is certainly wavering in this regard) whilst still having a strong domestic response to terror. Based on my watching of world news I would say there have been more successful terror investigations in the UK and Germany since September 11 than there have been in the USA.
At the moment I place the US somewhere in the middle, not as strong institutionally as Europe (especially because of the lack of true seperation of powers through the judicial appointment process and the strong ties between congress and the president, the president and the military, and the military and the military justice system), but not yet in the zone of corruption occupied by Russia and many South-East Asian nations.
So... in the context of this story, I guess I would ask the following questions:
- was the investigation started through a clearly defined process?
- were records made of the investigation, the reasons for the investigation, and the steps taken, and are those records public (or will they become public at some stage in the reasonably near future)?
- was the kid in question informed of his rights, for example the right to not speak to the investigators if he didn't want to?
- was the interview taped, videod or otherwise recorded and available to him on request?
- is he able to know where and how the information relating to his request was used, stored, or communicated to other agencies?
- was the process free from any element of threat or coercion (e.g. did the FBI rock up wearing dark suits, trenchcoats and overcoats and carrying weapons, or did they come dressed like normal humans and approach him in a friendly manner)?
If the answer to all of these is yes, then things are fine according to my theory. If the answer to any of them is no, there is cause for concern. I would be interested to hear any reasons why there would be any benefit in not doing any of these things in the context of terrorism.
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
In all honesty, I've never heard anyone in the US use the term "sand niggers." We're just not a hateful people. Of course, my 90 year old grandmother thinks we are at war with the "ay-rabs," but she doesn't hate anyone, she just can't understand the world political state these days.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
there is no such distinction between "normal laws" and "Patriot Act laws". The Patriot Act IS the law, modifies existing laws, or expands existing jurisdiction.
Well, yeah, of course. I was trying to make a distinction about whether the same old laws existing before were being used, or whether the new expanded powers were being used. I wasn't trying to pretend that there were two separate, parallel, independent law books and law enforcement got to choose.
Second of all, the Patriot Act demonstrably does not give the FBI the power to detain people without charge, without admitting they are holding them, and without warrant.
I slipped up here, confusing holding someone as an emeny combatant vs the powers given in the Patriot Act. You're right. I was wrong. (Am I allowed to say that on Slashdot?) The Patriot Act greatly increases surveillance and information gathering powers but doesn't give carte blanch (sp?) power as I had suggested. That power is simply being assumed by the Executive branch by calling someone an "enemy combatant." Now, in the cases where they have used this category, so far, I have agreed. But I get nervous when our government can change a name (criminal -> enemy combatant) and have unlimited power to take and hold an American citizen. If the Supreme Court agrees that the Executive Branch has this power, it will be widely abused. Within ten years at most. If the polarization of the US continues, anyway. These sorts of powers grow over time, with categories widening. Imagine how this would have been used during the 60's with the anti-war protestors.
Re:Why isn't this modded up? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a classical logical fallacy - I say 'A implies B' and you then respond "by your logic B implies A" and then you built an argument on this flawed premise.
My statement simply means that if you dont defend yourself with force that you will have serious problems no matter how nice and understanding and peace-loving you are. The rest of your argument appears to be an attemt to show how foolish my reasoning is by following it to it's logical conclusion. However, you used faulty logic, so you didn't succede.
Your try and ?extend? my reasoning to imply that simple reactionary defense is the only possible justifiable action (ie we shouldn't have been warring with Iraq because they didn't directly threaten us). If you believe that you should NEVER use force to stand up for what you believe, then I understand your point of view. I do not agree with that point of view however because I believe that sometimes you have to war for other reasons and simple reactionary defense.
And, by reactionary defense I mean 'wating around till someone attacks you to fight back.'
As for rethinking what I said, you read a lot of things into my argument that are not there.
Wake up and smell the *sig-laden-with-coffee*
Yes, war and death suck. Yes people on both sides of the conflict are dying, daily. Yes, according to the information we had at the time it was NECESSARY to enter Iraq - in retrospect, we probably could have waited and things MIGHT be different, but hindsight is always 20-20. No war has ever been won without tragedy. Is this one going to turn out to be worth it? We wont know for 10 or 20 years.
Yes, I know that you have issues with the war. Those issues appear to be based mostly on the questionable media assertion that our president can not actually [GASP!] tell the truth about his motivations.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
The point of the Freedom of Information Act was to enable citizen oversight of government -- because such citizen oversight is the substance of democracy.
Investingating acts, such as FOIA requests, that are wholly legal and a part of the function of democracy -- just like the Justice Departnet subpoenaing the names of protesters [desmoinesregister.com] -- tends to discourage citizens from questioning authority and from the exercise of legal rights: "Sure it's legal, but we'll hassle and possible arrest you" understandably makes people afraid.
And given that it is illegal to help set up a web site for a group or advocating opinions outlawed by the Jutice Department, even in the abscence of any other illegal activity [csmonitor.com], that fear is jutified.
What makes the University of Texas "investigation" so threatening is the quesions the investigators asked:
If the FBI investigators are interested in stopping terrorism, why were their first questions about the requestor's membership in legal and non-terroristic student organizations?
Is anyone else reminded of "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"
There are two possibilities that immediately leap to mind -- ok, three: 1) the FBI really thinks that student activist organizatins are terrosist fronts --has the "War of Terrot" really gone so badly wrong that large groups of American students have joined the "evildoers"?
2) That the FBI is investingating student activist groups -- not for real ilegal activity -- but to keep an eye on dissendents in teh infamous* tradition of COINTELPRO. [wikipedia.org]
* "infamous" is FBI Director Mueller's description of COINTELPRO, not mine.
3) That the FBI insn't investingating student activist groups per se, but wishes to discourage membership in those groups by tarring them with the "terrorist" brush -- in other words, that the FBI is making a foray into influencing domestic politics, a precursor to totalitarianism.
So which is it? Have a large number of American colege students jouined the terrorists, or is the FBI back in the business of investigating legal dissent, or is the FBI trying to use its official power to influence domestic politics?
Whatever the answer, it seems the threat is not so much to the pipes underneath the University of Texas -- it seems the real threat is to American democracy itself.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, or maybe there is another way of looking at it... I think moslems insisting on externalizing the problems their culture have had in the modern era is a good part of the problem. Many of their countries, quite a few that are awash in oil wealth, are running at over 50% unemployment rates for men in their 20s. At the same time the corrupt rulers are living lavishly and practicing the "let's put our country's wealth in personal Swiss Bank accounts" style of financial management. Those ruling elites can face either explaining their citizens poverty as a result of their mismanagement, or pointing the finger to external causes for the decline of Islamic civilization. Four at least 150 years Islamic elites have chosen to externalize the problem rather than look in the mirror. In the Islamic world the guys with guns are controlling the debate. Try to tell them you don't want the shi'ra enforced and see how long before you end up in a soccer stadium getting the crap beat out of yourself. The long term solution is forcing the governments of the Islamic world to stop satanizing the west to cover up their own corruption and mismanagement. After 911 it was inevitable that at least two middle eastern governments were going to get dropped. The west either tolerates being demonized by despots -- and hence targeted by unemployed middle eastern youths -- or the message has to be sent that the sweet life will come to an end quickly for those middle eastern rulers that tolerate such misdirection. Saddam's Palaces getting hit by cruise missile after cruise missile was a message most of the world missed -- I'm guessing folks sitting in other middle eastern palaces got a glimmering of that message. Until the externalizing of Islams problems end, and true dialog and criticism begins, expect that message to be delivered on several more occassions.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, I'm not saying that the US is similar to Nazi Germany, but it is always important to keep in mind that steps which are taken to combat criminals can also be used against innocents. And I certainly see the extreme right wing in the US as being capable of some serious oppression. The "Americans are not like this" speech given by Bush after the torture in Iraq is indicative of their mindset. They are so convinced that they are good (vs evil), the best, God's own people, etc, that they don't see the need for laws to 'hamper them' or free speech for their opponents which will 'just spread lies.' I certainly think that Bush would choose to be a dictator if he could (remember his: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.") This feeling of superiority is certainly similar to the Ubermensch ideals which has blinded people before to the harm they do to others.
I feel actively encourages terrorism.
No, encouraging terrorism is when you drive people to terrorism. For example, when a government does not care about their prisoners enough to properly instruct MPs, causing awful treatment of human beings, then that would be encouraging terrorism. Another example is when you fire two million military trained men so they can go home and be angry at the US who took away their paycheck. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Now, please vote for Kerry in November, even if you don't like them, because those incompetent bastards are creating terrorists at an impressive rate.
BTW, if you really care about preserving the lives of US citizens, you should worry about speeding, drunken driving, bad roadways and other causes of traffic accidents. The chance of dying in traffic is much, much greater than the chance you die in a terrorists attack.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
personally, I think you are over reacting.
Re:Comprehending Satire (Score:3, Interesting)
You remember all the old "anti-echelon" noise people would put in their e-mail messages and joke about all the time?
I wonder whether that contributed to a 9-11 intelligence failure.
*Seriously* - the recent British arrests of the people with a tonne of fertilizer was apparently started all by a sigint intercept. aka Echelon.
No one will ever be able to know, but certainly it's possible that there was a Al-Qaida e-mail that was ignored due to a large number of other anti-echelon crap on the wires at the same time... an e-mail that if intercepted might have broken the whole thing up.
wow (Score:2, Interesting)
The answer is not to shut up and cooperate. The answer is to change policy such that resources aren't being wasted anymore.
Signing books out of the library shouldn't be a form of expression. It should be private. If someone expressing themselves by doing things that should be completely private, and that can not possibly cause anyone to come to harm is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
Thanks to everyone that still has a sense of humor. Yes, I was kidding. Barely.
Make up your minds (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an investigation. They showed up and asked him a couple of questions. Ooooh, what fascists. Next thing you know, they'll be doing something REALLY outrageous, like asking him THREE questions.