Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:47PM

    by pnkwarhall (4558) on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:47PM (#145083)

    if everyone who has a clue feels that way, and everyone who feels that way is dangerous... []

    Violence is not the only way to be "dangerous". Commenter Bot's comment (which I modded insightful FYI) provides great context for understanding the danger inherent in individuals. Value systems cannot co-exist in the individual -- "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6.24)" -- and I'd argue that they tend to clash in group- and nation-contexts as well.

    We live in a period of mature Capitalism. Its systemic faults are alienating larger and larger minority groups because the value-clashes are becoming more and more apparent. The defenders of a capital-based value system are coming under quiet attack, and the attacks are getting louder... I **DO NOT** advocate violence, but the multiplying instances and general worldwide progression of anti-Western and anti-Capitalist sentiment seem like a clear sign that the status quo (read 'Capitalistic cultural and economic values') is no longer acceptable, and individuals and groups are acting.

    A change is coming. The powers-that-be are afraid, and it's not the "terrorists" that they're afraid of.

    Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:49AM

    by VortexCortex (4067) on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:49AM (#145224)

    A change is coming. The powers-that-be are afraid, and it's not the "terrorists" that they're afraid of.

    Ah, I see you took the blue pill. I took the red pill instead, so what I see is a change coming that's been architected by the powers-that-be; They're not afraid of the change, they're prepared for dissent, and TFA is yet more proof of this.

    Take a gander at this article. [] Now realize that New York has "anti-government extremists squads" who patrol for protesters or terrorists (as if the distinction matters anymore), and the "climate crisis" was an excuse to militarise police, just like terrorism is the excuse for the DHS to exist. If you don't think that the change already happened, then you might want to check your water, frog, it's boiling. Fast cars and cheeseburgers kill 400 times more people every year than 9/11. It's been over a decade, so that means our love for Freedom Fries and Fords has been over 4,000 times more deadly than any terrorist. Bathtubs kill more people every year than any terrorist group ever. Where are our free bath mats?

    Life is dangerous: We should LAUGH when the threat of terrorism is trotted out in front of us, because we're brave enough to laugh in the face of far greater danger as we drive to get our kids Happy Meals. The fact that such questionnaires exist at all should inform you the times are long past changing into that which you think the powers-that-be are afraid of. Rethink your stance, and get yourself prepared -- or you can just continue believing whatever the fuck you want, as usual.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:31PM

      by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:31PM (#145264) Journal

      After observing the massive [] yet inefficient [] response [] to three individuals or teams of murderers, it seems obvious to me that given sufficient motivation and planning, US governments all the way up and down the heirarchy of authority are in no way able to deal with even small numbers of individuals. (Linked stories are just basic references; a little digging in obvious places such as wikipedia will reveal the absolutely massive amount of government resources expended to little effect in each case.)

      There are many more examples to choose from, scattered across recent history, from the Battle of Athens [] to the Colorado Killdozer []. There are also some more insidious examples [] involving infrastructure. The take-away message seems to be that, in spite of France calling the USA the "world's lone hyperpower", its governments are very vulnerable to even tiny numbers of dedicated individuals of even moderate abilities. US governments want to project the facade that they are competent and in complete control of the populace... but after close examination, that's all it appears to be: a facade.

      As a side note, given how peaceful things are in the USA relative to the population numbers, infrastructure vulnerabilities, and actual ineffectiveness of government control, I like to think that my neighbors and I really aren't as bad as the mainstream media makes us all out to be. Things could be even more peaceful if governments would stop denying access to courts for drug dealers and users via its second (and unconstitutional without an authorizing amendment like its predecessor required) Prohibition - as it is, if there's a dispute in that business sector, about the only way to resolve it involves trying to kill the other party.