FBI Seeks To Restrict University Student Freedoms

amigoro writes with a link to the Press Escape blog, which is discussing new guidelines suggest by the FBI for university administrations. The Federal Bureau, worried about the possibility of international espionage via our centers of learning, now sees the need to restrict the freedoms of university students for national security. "FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls 'espionage indicators' aimed at identifying foreign agents. Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators."

FUD-O-Rama

[rueger (210566)]

The referring article does open with:

US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities, according to a set of guidelines given to administrators by the FBI.

It appears that that paragraph is a gross exaggeration of what the FBI is proposing, and indeed further in the article University spokespeople talk about a possible "chilling effect", not about the kind of wholesale assault on freedoms suggested.

I don't like the FBI sticking their nose into other people's business, but let's at least try to represent the problems accurately.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Eadwacer (722852)]

In fact, when you compare the blog item with the Boston Globe article, you find that the Globe makes no mention of the linked .pdf with the "guidelines" in it. Those are from a document intended for government employees, and make no sense when you try to apply them to academia. What the Globe mentions are suggestions that profs secure their laptops when overseas, and that they know who they are talking when they talk about high tech work with defense applications.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Kohath (38547)]

Yeah, the FBI wants people to report suspicious activity. Wow!! I'm outraged.

The problem with the mock-outrage and crocodile tears for things like this is that it desensitizes people. When freedoms are actually, genuinely under assault, it'll get posted on Slashdot and everyone will ask "What is Slashdot whining about this time? Should I read the article to find out how it's misinformation again, or should I just save time and assume it's misinformation, like it usually is?"

Freedom is important. It's far too important for this. It's important to be vigilant to protect it. Pretending there's an assault on freedom when there isn't don't count as vigilance -- rather it provides cover so the real anti-freedom measures get lost in the noise.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[gorehog (534288)]

Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know

Look at this list. The problem with it is that it takes things that are NORMAL for intellectuals to try to do and calls them suspicious.

I always thought the "need to know" was assumed to be granted to the people except in special cases where the government classifies information. If it's not specifically restricted then we have a right to it. This mandate from the Feds puts students and professors under a nasty microscope.

How does one explain their affluence? Most rich people are never asked where the money came from. Interrogating affluence leads to nothing more than vindictive sophistry.

Who do I have to report overseas travel to? Isn't it enough to inform the State Department that I travel? now I have to report my summer vacation plans to the school administration?

Information outside the job scope? So, if I'm a humanities student and taking welding classes at night I'm a terrorist?

A lot of people go into academics because of the flexible schedule. In that context what are unusual hours?

Unreported contacts with foreign nationals? Aside from academic and intellectual interest in world affairs and the question of who is the supervisor waiting for a report...this is a violation of the fourth (fifth?) amendment protections which guarantee you to be secure in your personal effects. Oh yeah...there's also something about freedom of speech.

unreported contact with foreign government? same as above. WTF, if I choose to emigrate I have to inform my school administration?

I've only provided one example per case. What it comes down to is that EVERY item on that list has many many legitimate purposes to exist. What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Kohath (38547)]

Once again, these are not relevant points. You can congratulate yourself for spotting something inconsistent all you want.

When someone says "The FBI is coming in their uniforms to get us all!", it's not really useful to point out that the FBI generally doesn't wear uniforms -- they tend to wear suits. But the point, again, is that they're not coming to get us all.

The article says that the FBI is asking people to watch out for certain behaviors. Who is less free because of that? What are they less free to do? What freedom has been taken away?

What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.

I suggest building a concrete bunker. Maybe you still have one from Y2K. And tinfoil hats -- always.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[syousef (465911)]

Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity?

This is university we're talking about. Surely FAILING to pull all-nighters would be the suspicious activity.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Descalzo (898339)]

Since when is having a bit of cash ("Unexplained affluence") a suspicious activity?
Since when is failing to bore people with every detail of your vacation ("failing to report overseas travel,") a suspicious activity?
Since when is curiosity ("showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope") a suspicious activity?
Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity?

Are you serious? This is how they catch people. These are the very first things the FBI (for example) looks into when granting security clearance.

It's like saying, "Since when is a high heart-rate bad for you? I work out all the time and have a high heart-rate every day!" and getting pissed when the nurse takes your pulse as soon as you walk into the clinic!

When I worked at the grocery store, part of my job was to catch shoplifters. An expert told me, "You can tell the shoplifters because they are watching you, not their shopping." Now does everyone that looks at the night manager a shoplifter? Of course not, and only a fool would believe it, and only a bigger fool would suggest it. But the idea that you can detect shoplifters by seeing what they are watching is still extremely useful. It's the unusual-ness that makes it suspicious. It's a judgment call in the grocery business, and I imagine it is in the industrial counter-espionage business as well.

Over the decades, people whose job it is to prevent espionage of all types have come to the conclusion that unexplained affluence, unusual interest outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, etc., etc., are good indicators of suspicious activities.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[fredklein (532096)]

So your opinion of what's suspicious and your cartoon-version interpretation of the FBI's opinion differ.

The Govt is what is 'cartoonish'.
Stolen from : http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=96 [hoboes.com]:

Back in 1991, the Pittsburgh Press did a survey of reasons for DEA agents taking people's money when they come off of airplanes. It was classic profiling:

Agents in Illinois are told its suspicious if their subjects are among the first people off a plane, because it shows they're in a hurry.
In Michigan, the DEA says that being the last off a plane is suspicious because the subject is trying to appear unconcerned.
And in Ohio, agents are told suspicion should surface when suspects deplane in the middle of a group because they may be trying to lose themselves in the crowd.

What freedom is taken away by the FBI asking people to watch out for certain behaviors

Nothing.

IF the behaviours are not unreasonable vague.

The list of behaviours mentioned here IS unreasonably vague.

It creates a surveilance society. People become afraid to do or say anything because their neighbors might report them for 'suspicious activity'. "I tell you, officer, they left town last week, and didn't tell everyone about their travel plans." "The father leaves for work WAY to early, and gets home late sometimes..." "They bought a new car last week. Where'd they get the cash? Must be terrorists..."

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[MonGuSE (798397)]

I actually don't consider this FUD since I've seen suggestions at my university for all students to have to submit a reason with evidence why they missed a class or go before academic review and possibly get a quarter off. It has not flown yet because of so many holes in the argument but I was wondering why it even mattered that much. Sometimes people need a day off, in America we don't get enough of them anymore. Although I will admit students have it comparatively easy in relation to working stiffs.

Also if you watched the Daily Show on Thursday John had a guy on promoting his new book called 'Quantico' that had some interesting information about his interactions with the FBI. He specifically stated that in the near future there would be surveillance tech installed at all campuses assumably in an attempt to combat domestic terrorism. Because you know so much of it happens on a school campus. He also said the higher ups in the homeland security divisions, in the meetings he got to attend and discuss matters with them are showing a keen interest into this 'new' arena of terrorism and not concerned with foreign terrorists as much anymore.

This all sounds like big brother and McCarthyism combined. Do we never learn that while we need agencies looking for the next terrorist attack what we don't need is to create an environment in which we loose the very things we are trying to protect. Whack a mole indeed.

The only information they need to disseminate is be vigilante, it is everyone's responsibility. By trying to become big brother no one is vigilant because they either hate big brother and don't want to help him or they have a false sense of security.

Lastly profiling does not work as one would assume. You can always find things about people that seem to fit into a 'mold' but really it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Profiling only helps to give you a general idea of who you may or may not be looking for but the person you are looking for may not fit that profile and a person that fits that profile is more than likely not to be who you are looking for. Its just a tool to help you get started in a direction when you don't have better evidence to go with or to possibly help you out when you get desperate. When you apply it with no context or no crime then it becomes worthless because you get 99.99% false positives and when you get that .01% positive your already assuming that its a false positive and overlook it. This new approach by the FBI is wrong on so many levels its retarded. Everyone is a criminal unless cleared...

...and?

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

That changes nothing about what the original poster was saying. Vastly overstating a case does no good, and often does harm. If you tell me that the government is severely fucking over my freedoms, and I then come to discover you are full of shit, I am much less likely to listen to you in the future. The whole "boy who cried wolf" thing.

If you want to get your message out you need to be accurate. In this case, this whole thing is amazingly overstated. The guidelines are for people with security clearance, and the FBI isn't suggesting that universities apply them to students. That isn't to argue that this is a good thing, but please let's be accurate with what is going on.

Slashdot could be a pretty good source for news on governmental restrictions of freedom, but most of the time they vastly overstate what is going on. Thus it doesn't take someone long to conclude the people are full of shit and start ignoring it. Trying to rationalize it with a pithy saying does nothing but further show that it is about sensationalism, not truth.

We all must agree

[lufo (949075)]

unreported contact with foreign [...] intelligence officials

As well as been called by a 00 number and introducing themselves as "Surname, Name Surname" might be considered highly suspiciuos.

Paranoid

[Wellington Grey (942717)]

Federal agents are visiting some of the New England's top universities... to warn university heads about the dangers of foreign spies and terrorists stealing sensitive academic research.

FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls "espionage indicators" aimed at identifying foreign agents.

Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.

What a paranoid and counterproductive list. Isn't the information in bold just about everyone who works in academia?

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:Paranoid

[Wellington Grey (942717)]

Perhaps you missed the word 'unusual.'

Well, it's been my experience that the 'usual' person isn't interested in anything that wasn't on TV, so this would have quite a chilling effect for anyone, like myself, who actually enjoys learning things.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:Paranoid

[Babbster (107076)]

I'm sure you and others will wave their hands and hyperventilate while insisting that they are sure that the government will somehow not fuck it up, but you're going to have to try harder than that.

Not fuck what up? Taking a report from someone at a university who finds a set of traits and activities of a particular person suspicious and then following up said report with an investigation of the circumstances behind the "suspicious" information? "Hey, why did you work late in the lab last week?" "I had to get some work done." "Really?" "Yeah." "Okay, thanks. Good luck with the project!"

People in this discussion are acting like the FBI is setting up field offices on college campuses in order to nab spies. That's not the case. The linked article only says that the FBI is offering to brief college staffs on possible warning signs that could indicate espionage activity. There's no mandate to attend such briefings, there's no requirement to report anything and there's certainly no per-university quota requiring a particular number of reports be filed per semester. The FBI is offering information and that is all. This is a total non-story.

Serious?

[BWJones (18351)]

Unexplained affluence

Ummmm, that is what an education is supposed to get you.

failing to report overseas travel

Oh, my students are supposed to check in with me everywhere they go?

showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope

Hey! I want my students to explore new and interesting things. That is what they are here to do.

keeping unusual work hours

They had *better* be working their asses off. :-)

unreported contacts with foreign nationals

Ummmm, collaboration? There are folks outside the US that *are* doing exciting science you know...

unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials

OK, I might give them this.

attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know

Oh, jeez..... these people have been in government too long. Compartmentalized information is certainly appropriate, but in an educational setting, where people are not doing sensitive work? Come on now, if you are involved in classified work, you have to pass background checks and *obtain* clearance, particularly for compartmentalized projects.

and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.

Sure, whatever. They might also be skiing...

great, i'm going to get into trouble...

[Digitus1337 (671442)]

"...showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope..." A true thirst for knowledge will arrouse suspicion? Do we really want this? Controlling information is the first step down a nasty road.

Oh crap, i'm a terrorist/spy!

[pcgamez (40751)]

[quote]
Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.
[/quote]

Other than the first point, that describes a large portion of the college population (especially at the graduate level).

The problem with a guide like this is that it returns too many false positives. The odds of a single person who fit most of those characteristics out of a group of 20,000 being a terrorist is almost nil. Yes, it will be true in some cases, but not in enough to warrant the massive investment in time. All this does it put people's minds at ease that the government is Doing Something.

Blog article seems confused

[Animats (122034)]

The DIA guidelines on "combating the insider threat" [ncix.gov] refer to people with security clearances of at least SECRET. That's a standard list, and goes back to at least the 1950s. The article doesn't make a connection with it being applied to universities.

What's puzzling about this is that it's totally out of touch with reality. The USSR was interested in American R&D, but that's because they had an industrial base and weapons plants that could use R&D. No enemy of the US today has anything like that. (North Korea and Iran, maybe, but they're mostly trying to do things the superpowers did in the 1950s.) Al-Queda consists of loosely affiliated small groups that use off the shelf weaponry. This seems a mis-aimed effort, which isn't unusual for the current administration.

Deceptive headline designed to distort the truth

[mc6809e (214243)]

There is nothing in that article the describes the restriction of students' freedoms.

Instead, the FBI is advising these universities on how they can protect themselves from those that would steal important research.

As bad as the government might be, I don't see what good it does to distort the facts.

Read TFA

[Lambticc (563530)]

From the guidelines:

We should report observations of one or more of the following indicators pertaining to a person with access to classified information...

This seems to make perfect sense. If schools want the money that comes from doing classified research they should be vigilant in making sure that that research stays classified.

Facts from the source

[CompMD (522020)]

Why are slashdot readers more prone to going apeshit insane over a blog post? Here is the website [fbi.gov] of the actual FBI group that works to protect domestic research and technology. It is a good read and will communicate far more useful, accurate information than a blog post.

Great indicators...

[Trerro (711448)]

"FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls 'espionage indicators' aimed at identifying foreign agents. Unexplained affluence

You mean, like the affluence that lets you afford the world's most expensive university system?

failing to report overseas travel

Yes, I'm sure the when the student visits his family on spring break, he's going to be in a huge hurry to file a report.

showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope

Oh noes! A FOREIGN SCHOLAR is interested in learning. EVERYBODY PANIC!

keeping unusual work hours

Ignoring the joke majors, good luck finding a college student who DOESN'T occasionally need to do work at 5 AM, whether the result of too much work, too much procrastination, or as is usually the case, both.

unreported contacts with foreign nationals

Yeah, I'm sure he's going to fill out paperwork every time he has an IM conversation with a friend from his home country.

unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials

This is probably about the only item on this entire list that DOES deserve attention, though even here - it better be military and intelligence, as 'government' includes things like the guys he's getting the loan from.

attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know

Horrifically vague. There's a big difference between asking for a tour of a building relevant to your major so you know how things actually work, and trying to lie your way into a military base. I suppose the 'need to know' clause is supposed to fix that problem, but it doesn't. If you have enough of a passion for learning that you're coming overseas to do it, you're probably a rather curious person by nature, and probably have quite a bit of random knowledge that you don't 'need to know.'

and unexplained absences

Does anyone seriously bother to explain to most of their professors why they were absent? Can anyone say with a straight face that they've NEVER cut class without a valid reason - ESPECIALLY when you get that one professor you know you're going to learn absolutely nothing from? Overall, this list might not be quite as bad as the old duct tape announcement, but it does show about the same level of paranoia.

good luck with that...

[bigbigbison (104532)]

I'm a grad student and I have a hard enough time turning my student's grades in on time. I doubt I'm going to get around to report anything to the FBI. I'm making less than $13000 a year. That isn't enough for me to spy on my students. Give me a few thousand and I might think about it.

It's worth it.

[moxley (895517)]

There have already been great points made about this -

But I will say this - the more we allow authorities to destroy our quality of life over fears of terrorism, the less our country is worthy of such 'protection.' If all of our freedoms are gone, what do we have left that is worth protecting; what remains that makes America so great? Don't get me wrong, I love my country, that is why everytime the government says that they are doing something that goes against our very principles to protect us I am suspicious and disgusted.

It is a fact of life that you could die or be killed at any time. It is just a fact, it doesn't matter how much money you have, who you are, or where you live. 20 year olds can have heart attacks, a meteor impact could hit the planet and start the cycle of life all over again from the beginning. Someone could go nuts and kill you - such is the price of living in freedom.

Besides, this government is way too corrupt and self preserving to truly protect this country and it's people, even if that is what they are truly trying to do on some level.

It's worth it. I would rather live in freedom then take up space in a police state.

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

Did universities in the United States become part of the FBI?

Tell you what, when they arrest the Attorney General, Vice President and President and charge them with the long list of crimes they have committed against the US people, against the US constitution and against humanity, then lets talk about this stuff eh?

They have by any objective standards ordered torture and committed other war crimes.

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

Well not exactly... US soldiers cannot stand trial before either Hague or Rome Tribunal (newer version of the Hague), since they have immunity :) So, since they cannot be convicted, they cannot commit war crimes :)

That is not the case at all. The International Criminal Court is simply a permanent court to replace the ad-hoc courts convened to prosecute previous war crimes. The US or more particularly the Bush administration opposes the ICC. That can be reversed by a future administration.

The ICC only has jurisdiction if the national courts are unable or refuse to prosecute. US law has multiple provisions to prosecute war crimes in federal courts. The only situation in which an international court would be required would be if Bush were to pardon himself or his accomplices.

The constitution only allows the President to pardon offenses against the United States. Gitmo is in Cuba and according to the Bush administration not under the jurisdiction of the US courts. If the US is not sovereign Cuba must be. I am sure that the authorities there would deal with the situation appropriately.

Re:Since when

[vampirbg (1092525)]

I might be wrong, but here are the links:

http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=usaicc [iccnow.org]
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/icc-US_threats-eng [amnesty.org]

Here's the quote from Amnesty International site:

The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.

Re:Since when

[Andrew Kismet (955764)]

Objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...

Fixed.

Re:Since when

[toddestan (632714)]

Your objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...

It's related to reality's well known liberal bias.

Re:Since when

[Moridineas (213502)]

So, uh... what made all the 19 terrorists in 2001?

If you buy UBL's reasons, us having troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula during the first Iraq war. That's what got him going...not supposed to allow infidels, and CERTAINTLY not infidel troops.

What made those that blew up the Cole?

more of the same--also having a ship stationed off the peninsula.. same troops thing as above.

What made those that blew up our embassies in Africa?

Since al-qaida, same thing as above.

What made those that blew up Marine Barracks in Lebanon?

Us maintaining troops in a foreign country? I've never really understood this one as a terrorist action--can attacks on solely military targets really be "terrorist" ?

What made the Turks invade Europe?

I don't know, what made Europeans invade Africa, Mongols invade China, Germany invade Poland, etc etc etc... why does anyone invade anyone? turks were conquering places well before they were Muslim, so I don't think you can blame that one on Islam!

Please note I'm not JUSTIFYING any of these... they're complete BS. but saying that there is no reason is also silly--the people doing the attacking have plenty of reasons. Iran doesn't randomly hate us, they hate us for helping to get rid of Mossadegh and supporting the repressive Shah all those years. UBL doesn't randomly hate us (though he comes close..) he has specific reasons. Again, I'm not saying any of these are GOOD reasons, I'm just saying, had we never interfered in the middle east, never supported cruel dictators, and never sent troops over there, things might be different.

One could also make the argument it's good to fight Islamic fundamentalism, period. I might even say that! I do rather think it's one of those self perpetuating things though...the more you fight it, the more it pops up.

I'll also agree that the original poster (the BLAME BUSH!!! guy) is a whacko...

Re:You want to know how it started?

[rben (542324)]

It started because of oil. Oil is a strategically and economically vital resource for the U.S. It has been since before Israel was set up, and probably has a lot to do with the creation of that country, since it gave the U.S. a friendly presence in an oil rich region.

Oil is what fuels the repressive governments in the Middle East. If they didn't have oil, the U.S. wouldn't care about them and wouldn't prop up governments that abuse their people. Those oppressive regimes create plenty of unhappy people, who turn to religion for answers as to why their life has to suck so much. They follow anyone who can give them hope for a better future.

Fundamentalism works the same over there as it does here, it preys mostly on the poor and disenfranchised, the people who feel they have no power of their own and want to belong to something greater than themselves. They join, feel a sense of belonging and community, and become willing to do whatever they are asked. Just like the cults here, those fundamentalist sects are run by charismatic individuals. These guys have no regard for the lives of their followers. They offer up the U.S. and the rest of the West as the reason for all the woes of these poor people, and why shouldn't these people believe them? They have very limited sources of information and often have very little education.

The ones who are educated see the U.S. as an interfering power that cares more about the oil than about the people who live on the land. Our actions, as a nation, just reinforce that notion.

If you want to end terrorism, end our dependence on oil. Push your representatives to support alternative energy, preferably the non-global warming kind. That is the only way to turn off the money supply to those governments. Do that, and those governments will eventually fall. What rises in their place will depend on how well we can repair the terrible damage Bush has done to our reputation.

Lets all hope we get wiser heads in our government soon.

Re:Since when

[ArcherB (796902)]

I'm wondering where that Orwell quote comes from. I'm reading a collection of his essays right now and find him pretty fascinating.
Since you asked nicely :-)
It is amazing how little has changed between 1942 and today. It is amazing that Orwell's words are just as relevant today as they were 65 years ago.
Here is the whole quote:

Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

It comes from a periodical called Partisan Review, August September 1942

A link to the whole Orwell article:
Pacifism and the War [orwell.ru]

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

You mean Osama Bin Ladin and the Taliban? The guys that the US trained and supplied with weapons back in the 80's?

That is not actually the case. Bin Laden was the Saudi money man for the Afghan resistance. The Saudis agreed to deliver matching funds to those supplied by the US.

Bin Laden's real issue is that he would prefer to be in charge in Saudi Arabia than the House of Saud. He can't do that with the US army camped on Saudi Arabia.

The real organizer of AQ is a guy called Zawahiri. He was the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and was a ringleader in the assasination of Sadat.

Taking out Bin Laden and Zawahiri would have a major impact in reducing terrorism. Torturing random Iraqis picked up by the US occupation will only increase terrorism.

And as for the wingnut campaign to mod down the original post as 'offtopic' circulating on their mailing lists. What could be more ontopic here than the fact that the Bush administration is lawless and refuses to comply with the most basic provisions of international law? The use of torture means that every new power grab must be resisted.

Re:Since when

[ArcherB (796902)]

You are a sick fool.

Your hands are covered in the blood of both Americans and Iraqis. If there were any justice, you'd get drafted. Instead, you've got all the Rush Limbo you can eat.

Disgusting Republican slave.

Drafted? No, I volunteered. I served in the US Army and did two tours in the Mid East. I met the thankful Kuwaitis who fell all over themselves to thank me, no matter how many times I said "No thanks necessary" and "Your very welcome". I saw the kids and parents who were missing hands, feet, tongues, eyes and got to meet them. I am sad that I could not be there to stop the mass graves from filling up. I'm sorry I was not able to kill the men who shot women in the head and threw them into mass graves, still clutching their screaming children. No, I could do nothing for these people because people like you don't give a shit about anyone but yourselves. It does not bother you at all to know that millions of men, women and children were murdered in cold blood while you rely on corrupt politicians to compromise with thugs, rapists and murderers. It doesn't bother you at all that children starve or die from preventable diseases because YOU don't care enough about them to shut your mouth long enough for me to rescue these people and give them a chance at life.

Yeah, if that makes me a sick fool, then I'll wear that badge with pride. However, don't you dare sit there and tell me I have the blood of Americans on my hands unless you want your blood to be the first! I may have Iraqi blood on my hands, but it was Iraqis that did all the stuff I described above. I'm willing to get blood on my hands for the lives and liberty of the innocent. What will you do beyond going to a "concert for peace" or put a "Bush-Bin-Lying" bumper sticker on your car? Sorry, but neither concerts nor bumper stickers have saved a life or freed a society. So until you are willing to get off your fat, peace-lovin ass and actually fight for something beyond "your right to party", I suggest you shut the fuck up as you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

So, yeah, there is justice and I helped provide it.

(Yeah, it's OT, but don't mod me 'off topic' unless you do the same for the parent)

Re:Since when

[Elrac (314784)]

OK ArcherB, you're not a sick fool. What you are in fact is a patriotic, loyal, good-hearted, well-intentioned fool.

Thanks to your efforts and the efforts of thousands of others like you, death rates in Iraq have more than doubled; many thousands of Iraqis have fled the country, and life for those who remain has been horribly disrupted by the constant fear of violence. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator who used of torture and violence. But if you look at the bottom line, most Iraqi citizens were better off before the US invasion than after.

The thankful Kuwaitis you rescued are exactly the affluent, self-serving egotists you rant against. They bless you for having rescued their material comforts, and saving their corrupt government from the consequences of drilling laterally into Iraqi territory. Furthermore, when they're not being rescued, they hate Americans every bit as much as the Iraqis do.

The fact that you risked your life does not automatically make you a better person than those who know better. You followed your evil, bumbling President into the greatest disaster in American history and are still blind enough to feel all righteous about it. If you ever come to see the truth, I hope it doesn't hurt you too badly.

Re:Since when

[KillerCow (213458)]

IM In UR Skoolz

Learnin UR Competitive Advantagez

Re:Since when

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

Like it or not, commercial espionage is a very serious issue; despite what movies and TV shows say, espionage by "friendly" countries goes on every day. They're not worried about military secrets; rather they want industrial ones that can help their own companies; so ensuring US universities are sensitive to indicators of espionage, just as commercial firms should be aware of the potential as well.

Despite the headline, the FBI is not asking universities to restrict anyone's freedom, all it is saying is "We will be glad to brief your staff on what to be aware of to help identify *indicators* of espionage, and ask that you tell us so we can investigate as appropriate."

The article states:

"US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"

and provides a link to the guidelines that purport to do that. However, if the original author ever bothered to RTFG, they'd notice that the guidelines were simply that - a set of things to watch for that *may* indicate espionage; and don't ask anyone to restrict anyone's ability to "work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"

Anyone who has had a US security clearance has received a similar brief on an annual basis; the idea is simply co-workers, who are in close contact with each other, are the best first line defense against espionage and should be aware of the warning signs.\\Of course, the truth is often not as newsworthy as some sensational spin.

Re:Since when

[AuMatar (183847)]

And the difference is? Other that in the first cold war, the boogeyman existed and had an army, while this one is imaginary?

Re:Since when

[sgt_doom (655561)]

If Sept. 11 was done by "real terrorists" why hasn't anyone in the Bush Administration ever appeared concerned with apprehending them????

Instead, he's killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Made hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions more, homeless in Iraq and surrounding Arab countries where they have fled to.

He refused to convene any type of investigative commission, until finally, he was forced to - and even then he underfunded them and refused to allow them sub peona powers.

And when he spoke before them with his handler Cheney, he refused to testify under oath. Wow, but I'm sure you know best, huh???

I'll bet you're in the crowd that believes torture works? If so, then WTF is Osama???? Or at least, WTF is he hiding out at??? Guess all that torture doesn't work after all, especially not on innocents.....

[Commonly heard phrase in the USA: "I'm a Christian, let's nuke Iran!"]

Re:Since when

[Kohath (38547)]

Not to mention that there are bombings by the hundreds in Thailand [google.com] and Bangladesh [google.com]. And others in the Philippines [google.com], Indonesia [google.com], India [google.com], Pakistan [google.com], Spain [google.com], Yemen [google.com], Saudi Arabia [google.com], Kenya [google.com], Russia [google.com], Argentina [google.com], Israel [google.com], Jordan [google.com], Lebanon [google.com], Egypt [google.com], etc. Oh, and Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, there are failed bombing plots in Canada [google.com], Germany [google.com], Britain [google.com], New Jersey [google.com], Chicago [google.com], New York [google.com], and numerous other places.

To some people, these incidents are all imaginary, I guess. Or they're George Bush's fault, so they'll all magically go away on Jan 20, 2009.

Bombing is not new

[aepervius (535155)]

Bombing in the world is not new. What is new is that it is made a propaganda of it, and in addition that people pretend that a single organisation (S.P.E.C.T.R.E.^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z I mean Al Quaeda) is handling the reign and direct all those bombing like a well ordered orchestra. and THAT is the ridiculous part. Long when Bush is gone there will be more bombing in other part of the world. (Heck even maybe in the US, done by one of those anti federal-nut).

Re:Since when

[misanthrope101 (253915)]

No, many of us are aware that terrorism has skyrocketed since Bush took office. Many around the world believe that his policies are fueling the increase. Many government studies have noted that our actions are making terrorism worse.

I know you meant that linking Bush to increased terrorism is just liberal Bush-hating, but to do so you'd have to be pretty ignorant of all the studies and articles pointing out that our actions in Iraq, the secret torture prisons around the world, the renditions, the detention without trial, etc are galvanizing the islamacist community and are basically a terrorist recruiter's wet dream. We're doing a better job than they are of making the USA look evil

Re:Since when

[wellingj (1030460)]

No, there is no mystical Alqueda organization out there wanting to kill us all, thats a myth used by the government to keep us afraid and consolidate their power.

You keep telling your self that just like Bush did before the attack...
Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.

Re:Since when

[lymond01 (314120)]

Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.

I think that vocal minority also wants to be left alone and live as they will. People dislike the U.S. for many reasons, but a big one is that our policies and corporations get in their faces. I have a tendency to believe that there are organized units of people with a leadership that feels it has no voice and therefore resorts to violence to make itself heard. Who does it hire to commit the acts of violence? Brain-washable young people and others they can sway by religion which is still a dominant force for coercion in some parts of the world (including the U.S.)

People will fight over anything of course, and our attempts at globalization are just what they're picking on today. Perhaps if we just remained Fortress America, people would hate us because we weren't Muslim/Buddhist/Purple, or didn't allow others into our country, or because we were fat.

But I'll pretty much guarantee you one thing: you're not going to help matters by waging war against these people. You're just going to give them a valid reason to hate you.

Re:Since when

[Brad1138 (590148)]

Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.

There was a "very very small minority", With the horrible things we have done & are doing to/in Iraq, the number grows everyday. It is probably closer to "a minority" now.

Re:Since when

[mydn (195771)]

But saying 1+1=3 doesn't change THE FUCKING FACT IT = 2!!!

That depends on when you perform rounding and what the values were prior to rounding. 1+1 does in fact eqaul 3, for sufficiently large values of 1.

Re:Since when

[einhverfr (238914)]

This is not about a second cold war. This is about combating global radical Islam.

And the difference is?

I mean, really the difference between the attempt to combat global communism and the attempt to combat global radical Islam is?

It *is* a second cold war, just with the assertion of different enemies.

Re:Since when

[einhverfr (238914)]

BTW, having read the actual FBI document, it was not nearly as bad as the blog or summary made it seem. Those arguments seem to apply to people with security clearances exclusively, and the interest in other information is defined later on in the document as other *classified* information.

The next question is: What sort of classified information and research is done at universities? How much of it? What are the counter-intelligence ramifications? What is the appropriate response?

Re:Since when

[Vellmont (569020)]

when people actually had the backbone to stand up and protest like they meant it?

I believe there was also this thing called the.. draft. Where people could be sent off to a war and potentially die. There were also a LOT more troops and a LOT more casualties, so I'd bet everyone knew at least one person who died, or had a friend/family member who knew someone who died. I'd bet everyone knew someone that was IN vietnam. As far as the Iraq war goes, I'm 3 degrees of seperation from someone who died, and I'd bet even THAT is rare.

The point being, this war has a lot less personal connections to it than Vietnam did. It has nothing to do with "backbone". For the most part people are motivated by what affects them. No one is going to be drafted (especially people on a college campus), and a much smaller percentage of the populace is personally connected to it. So it really shouldn't be surprising that no one is rioting in the streets because of it. On the other hand we did have an election driven by ending this war, so it's not a total disconect.

It's designed to not end

[zogger (617870)]

The nation has been de-balled. It is a fait accompli. Neutered. It's mostly over, and the goons won. You can't do anything about it besides *talk*, and pretty soon that will be going the way of speech in china, their poster boy model nation, full technology, full police state, one major party, in the US it is the globalist party with two wings and their platform is full technofeudalism...

    If you do anything besides talk, it is considered a major crime, and you therefore are a criminal, maybe a "terrorist", so it becomes self fulfilling prophecy of their's.

  I remember a lot of civil disobedience to try and stop thoroughly disgusting governmental action, and it was dangerous then, but now, it is beyond dangerous, and they just won't put up with it. They have all the power they need now and plenty of order followers and a cowed-enough population who have more interest in entertainments and just making a living, a desperate living for a lot of people. Bread and circuses tempered with governmental "legal terrorism" makes for a controlled population.

Voting doesn't work, that is obvious. Even among the intellectually aware and politically active, the meme of "don't waste your vote!!!" is still quite strong and repeated endlessly, like some cult chant, and results in the same type and form and demographic makeup of government, election after election after election, which is, the completely corrupt R and D power sharing cartel which has hijacked government and runs it as a power and jobs sharing racket.

I vote, but it is inertia, more to say I still vote than for any expectation it will actually mean anything.

The short phrase is *sigh*

What's left, blog about it? You can't even go protest, step outside of the completely illegal and unConstitutional "free speech zones" and their mercenaries will arrest and/or beat you. Be a big enoug hassle to them, you go on the lists, and eventually won't be able to travel or change jobs even. It's coming. The population has sucked up the no fly list so far, no protests, meekly stand in line for the perv search and the humbling glares.

I knew once that got accepted without mass protest it was all over.

And stuff like that. Too tired to list them all, but there's a big list.

I'm not a pessimist, but I will consider myself a realist. We have a defacto low threshold but growing fast one party police state. It is only going to get worse for a long time to come now. They have found out they can get away with the largest crimes, with no revolt from the people, and a mostly controlled and tame media who go along with it, so small crimes are just part of the system now.

I think the best people can do now is try and stay as free and independent as possible, especially inside their own hearts, and see what opportunities present themselves in the future. Who knows, pigs may fly someday and we might get humble and honest and decent government some election time.

It could happen. Low odds, but still possible.