The 'Fly' Has Been Swatted
krebsonsecurity.com
krebsonsecurity.com
War on Terrorism -- send tips about so and so is building bombs or talking about jihad.
War on Drugs -- plant or send someone a drug package and notify police. One worse, SWAT them. With good luck they will be shot by the cops.
War on Kids via Zero Tolerance -- plant a piece of toast looking like a gun in someone's bag and tell a teacher.
War on Electronic Crime (Hacking) -- plant a DoS tool pointed to a .mil website on enemy's machine or network.
The list goes on. Of course in this case we have a good ending so that is encouraging. But the scary part is not that someone would wish all this harm to another person and come up with scheme like this, but that knowing how prosecution works, how Wars On <X> work, this seems like a very close call. It is the lack of faith in justice and the system to act rationally that is scary. Maybe the neighbor who is building bombs got a visit from FBI and they couldn't charge him. But they visited his work. Scared his kids. And ultimately put him on a watch list so from then on they get harassed every time they travel.
All of this long predates any War on ____. Your examples could just as easily be "send tips that so and so plans to rob a bank." There's no "War on Bank Robbers" but it'd be no less effective.
- The militarization of local police forces is largely thanks to the War on Drugs.
- The effects of a "SWATing" are amplified by the militarization of the police. If, for example, someone called in a murder in the 1950's, would the police come in guns-blazing shooting anything, and everything in their path, dropping flashbang grenades on sleeping children?
- Had the package of drugs arrived without Krebs being 'in on it,' then he would be in violation of the law because he possessed an illegal substance. The War on Drugs has given us the idea that merely possessing something is enough to get you jail time. This allows malicious actors to arrange for an illegal item to find its way into your possession... The police and prosecution hear "I was set up!" a lot. I'm sure they wouldn't pay much attention to just another cry of innocence (though being a white male in good social standing probably increases the odds).
Except that's not true either. In many places possession of burglary tools is a crime by itself. I'm not saying it's a good law, but it's certainly law. Same for any possession of child pornography, knowing possession of stolen property, any possession of a long list of EPA-banned toxic chemicals, any possession of unregistered firearms, any possession of modified firearms, etc etc etc.
Drugs. War of drugs makes SWATing a possibility. Breaking a door and throwing a flash grenade without looking or verifying things is made possible by 3 things (all related to some extent):
* Irrationality of the War On Drugs (remember these are the same officers that are doing that more routinely and the main reason is the believe there are drugs and don't want the perpetrator to throw them down the drain when they hear the knock)
* Militarization of police
* No consequences for actions for police officers
EDIT: see a related post I made this thread that contains some data about this (from an ACLU investigative report published by WAPO)
EDIT:
Case in point just this morning saw this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/n...
* 62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs.
* Just under 80 percent were to serve a search warrant, meaning eight in 10 SWAT raids were not initiated to apprehend a school shooter, hostage taker, or escaped felon (the common justification for these tactics), but to investigate someone still only suspected of committing a crime.
* In fact, just 7 percent of SWAT raids were “for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios.”
* In at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studies, no contraband of any kind was found. The report notes that due to incomplete police reports on these raids this figure could be as high as 65 percent. SWAT tactics are disproportionately used on people of color.
* 65 percent of SWAT deployments resulted in some sort of forced entry into a private home, by way of a battering ram, boot, or some sort of explosive device. In over half those raids, the police failed to find any sort of weapon, the presence of which was cited as the reason for the violent tactics.
* Ironically (or perhaps not), searches to serve warrants on people suspected of drug crimes were more likely to result in forced entry than raids conducted for other purposes.
* Though often justified for rare incidents like school shootings or terrorist situations, the armored personnel vehicles police departments are getting from the Pentagon and through grants from the Department of Homeland Security are commonly used on drug raids.
All I'm saying is that spoofing a call to the cops that says "I just killed my family, and am about to shoot any cop that shows up" is dangerous as hell no matter what the police are armed with. Cops are going to show up, they're going to fear for their lives, and they're going to treat the victim as a violent threat.
Right... I'm sure it was just a source who themselves got the information legally secondhand, and that Krebs had nothing to do with it. ;)