SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Are you, your family, or your community at risk of turning to violent extremism? Now you can find out as The Intercept reports that a rating system devised by the National Counterterrorism Center titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts,” lets police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: “Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,” “Talk of Harming Self or Others,” and “Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity).” The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies. Families are judged on factors such as “Aware[ness] of Each Other’s Activities,” as well as levels of “Parent-Child Bonding,” (PDF) and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to “presence of ideologues or recruiters” as potential risk factors. A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism,” according to the document. Users of the guide are encouraged to plot the scores on a graph to determine what “interventions” could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.
Experts have suggested that intervention by law enforcement or other branches of the government in individuals’ lives, particularly young people, based solely based on the views they express, can potentially criminalize constitutionally protected behavior. “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face,” says former FBI agent Mike German calling the criteria used for the ratings “subjective and specious.” Arun Kundnani questions the science behind the rating system. “There’s no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being," says Kundnani. "“It is obvious that, in practice, [this] would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by darkfeline on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:59PM
So, general discontent leads to a higher chance of rebelling against the government? Color me surprised. No wonder they want to take away the guns, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens the final word against the government, and is second only to the First Amendment.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:26PM
You realise that no matter how well armed you and your group are, you have no chance against the national guard, let alone the army. Your only hope against your government, and also against the people in Washington, is to convince the bulk of your armed forces to rebel, and for that you'd need the first ammedment. Where's the NRA rallies and funding defending the First?
The U.S. government likes the furoe about the second amendment. It means they can carry on destroying 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. #3 is ok though.
Of course the PR surrounding america and "support our troops" effectively means the 3rd amendment no longer exists. There'd be plenty of people willing to roll over and give up their beds for the "brave men in uniform", and given the U.S. is in a perpetual state of war, a rider can be added to the "We like cute puppies" act, so it's really no defence.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:58AM
You realise that no matter how well armed you and your group are, you have no chance against the national guard, let alone the army.
Unless, of course, you are better armed, more numerous, and win the battles you need to win. There is an assumption here that the national guard and army would be better armed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:19AM
You realise that no matter how well armed you and your group are, you have no chance against the national guard, let alone the army.
How many shitskins did it take to strike fear in the hearts of American servicemen?
How much money did it take to harass and eventually drive out the American invaders from Iraq?
Who won in Iraq? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Afghanistan 2.0?
I don't even want to dive into South America, there's too many instances.
History shows the world that even the smallest armed force can destroy the largest if they use "unconventional" tactics, constantly evolve their strategies, and purposely spread fear.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday February 16 2015, @03:34PM
It's true that an armed citizenship stands no chance against the full force of the military, but it forces the full force of the military, instead of a pepper spray here, a taser there. Once the government is full-out shooting, bombing, and running over people with tanks, it becomes impossible for even the media to pretend that everything's a-okay.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:56PM
It says right on the face of it that it's to support the militia because there was no professional army at the time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:25AM
The US was never intended to have a professional standing army. Article I Section 8 tried to forbid funding any army for more than two years. Of course, the way around this technicality is to dissolve the army every two years and immediately reconstitute it, which is exactly what the army does.
The framers didn't want the US to have a standing army because they didn't want the United States to become like the British Empire. They failed. The American Empire as it stands today is much worse, with military bases everywhere throughout the world.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:37AM
That's not worse, that's the same. Read up on the British Empire again, or the Sepoy mutiny, or the Boxer rebellion. The British Empire was no better than the US Empire, and in some ways a bit worse. You could start here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/285821/Indian-Mutiny [britannica.com] and here Boxer Rebellion | Chinese history | Encyclopedia Britannica . (Note that I picked sources biased in favor of Britain.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:50PM
The second amendment is deprecated at this point. Your phone exports your gps data which can be fed directly into the targeting systems of high payload carriers of individually targetable micro-munitions. Why do you think their upgrading avionics on the B-52?
Eventually some disgruntled corporal is going to hack it up and let it loose without orders. The "split! splat! blart!" will echo through the streets and we will not have to worry anymore. Political views will be homogeneous after that.