Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the have-we-come-to-this? dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:26PM

    by isostatic (365) on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:26PM (#145076) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:58AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:58AM (#145213) Journal

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:19AM (#145241)

    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

    by darkfeline (1030) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:34PM (#145667) Homepage

    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!