It seems like for all the effort we've put into stopping terrorism it's primarily being used against our own citizens rather than to stop any actual terrorism.
If anyone else is interested, here is the actual vote: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
> She "warned her colleagues to be 'careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target'". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lee#AUMF_opposition
The Radiolab podcast episode is IMO the best way to hear the telling. The link is to their re-release, which has a bit extra at the end IIRC. https://radiolab.org/episodes/60-words-20-years
When, instead, you see a school shooter's search history includes "I'm going to shoot up X school" and the FBI claims that they couldn't have foreseen it happening, then it starts to seem as if the results aren't as exceptional as they claim.
If terrorism was being stopped, would you even know it? Said differently, maybe it is working. If it was, what would be the way that you would know that it is working?
Yes, because the feds brag about it nonstop on the rare occasions they actually nab somebody.
Probably a decrease in successful terrorism attempts or an increase in thwarted terrorism attempts (with neither being attributed to something else instead). I don't think there's any value to this question though, since it can be used to justify literally anything. If a policy needs to prove its own value, then it should be constructed in a way that allows its value to be tracked.
Shouting successful secret missions just doesn't seem like something they would be doing as it could lead to the "enemy" learning ways and methods and what not. The only people they have to convince are the Gang of Eight.
Plenty of ways to take credit without revealing sensitive info.
If individual acts of terror are being prevented, but none of the people planning them are put in prison, and are free to walk the streets and try another plot, would you say those laws are effective? I wouldn't.
Maybe on a longer time horizon it won't work as well, but it's already been 20 years since 9/11.
As of 2011, the number was 40.
Is that high? Low? How many is that versus successful terrorist attacks?
They aren't minor plans either - they include carbombings, bombing buildings, targeted assassinations.
There is one where someone was sending money to al-Qaeda in Kashmir. That seems the least serious (as in it wasn't a planned attack on US soil).
Read this and contemplate using the Heritage Foundation as a source of truth in the future. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/limo-crash-ny-fbi-in...
There’s no way the security authorities are going to reveal sources and methods for actual plots.
My beef with the Heritage foundation is they present this as clear cut factual evidence while any thinking person, including federal judges overseeing the cases, is almost compelled to call out the nonsensical nature of the cases.
You’re not going to get any type of accounting for this stuff for 20-30 years when the decision makers are dead or retired and actual information gets declassified.
From 2001 until 2011. Where is the number now? Also those are all public...where are the ones the CIA knows about?
All aspects of security (policing, counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, etc) are all fundamentally impossible to prove how effective measures taken are. Usually the best we can do is use a proxy measure or test pre/post.
The government would never pass up an opportunity for good PR. They openly cheer when they assassinate foreign enemies don't forget, even when they're government officials.
This story is obviously an abuse of the system, but if this stopped natural born citizens who were planning to lock the doors of a busy nightclub and set it on fire it would be doing its job.
But even the system is only partially to blame here. It's really the corrupt employee and lack of oversight that is to blame. The system did allow the corruption to spread to other companies, but even if it was confined to Meta that would still be a lot of damage.
Has it ever? Is there a terrorist watchlist at the doors of nightclubs now? It would also be great if it cured cancer or replaced crumbling infrastructure, but why talk about nonsense?
Are you saying that legitimate dissenters are being illegitimately accused of terrorism? Or that terrorists are legitimate dissenters (despite the fact that terrorism is by definition using violence and not working within the legal framework? Or did you mean to say something else?
Really? Have you seen every single threat being made, either public or private? I don’t believe it.
When I worked at a large social media website, users would scream bloody murder about unfair moderation. But when I asked customer support, they always had good evidence that the user had terrible behavior in private but pretend to be virtuous in public to gather sympathy.
This is an asymmetric information space. The DOJ/FBI won’t release the actual evidence they have which triggered the opening of an investigation. The people who show up at board meetings are humans and had lives before they showed up. They posted on social media. They met with other people. They have political affiliations. I am fairly certain we will find out that these people made legit threats outside of the public forum that earned further investigation.
However, I wonder whether this is organized or organic. Is it an emergent property of population density, or is it determined by culture?
- 1 inhabitant/km2 = witch trials, tribe judgements, - 10 hab/km2 = beginnings of court justice, - 100 hab/km2 = politically-knee-jerk justice, - 1000 hab/km2 = Chinese or Japanese-style justice
Or perhaps it is related to the age of the current country?
If Twitter truly cared about their rules and acted with integrity they would've kicked him way sooner, but they didn't because he generated them tons of "growth & engagement" while he was President.