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."

Comments

Since when

[Herkum01]

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

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld]

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

[AuMatar]

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

[einhverfr]

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

[Registered Coward v2]

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

[Original Replica]

Why then? The FBI didn't do anything useful 10 September 2001. Maybe if the various intelligence agencies had actually made the world a better place they would possibly have reason for more power and wider control. But with the exception of the FBI helping solve occasssional domestic crimes, the work of the intelligence community has resulted in ever greater hatred and violence through out the world. Of course this reenforces our "need" for them, and we have a very obvious cycle. It was the very security agencies that are grabbing more power every day that made America so hated as to inspire international terrorism.

Re:Since when

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Apparently so. FTA: "... accesses without the need to know ...." This is the just the next step in the Maoization of Amerika. In China, it has become the job of the old biddy in the village to report anything troubling to the local central officials -- who's having an extra baby, who's not toeing the party propaganda line, etc.

Over here, we call it "mandatory reporting", so we can tie it to the "For the love of God, will no one think of the children" horseshit. The plan is to make every citizen an unpaid deputy of the state security apparatus.

To the best of my knowledge, it started with things like a note my wife found in her mailbox at the JC where she was teaching.

It said "You are hereby notified that, as a condition of continued employment, you are required to sign the attached form acknowledging that, as a school district employee, you understand that you are henceforth required, under penalty of law, to report any suspected incident of physical, emotional or psychological abuse you encounter on campus, whether it occurred on district premises or elsewhere."

Yet another unfunded mandate from the Office of the Commissar. Every time you turn around, you're being involuntarily made to act as a nanny for everyone in your environment.

And, no, I'm unwilling to accept any implication that I think child abuse should be allowed to continue with impunity. If you think that, you probably just read the middle word in each of my sentences and are too fucking dumb to justify any attempt at an explanation.

Re:Since when

[bdjacobson]

There's a few hundred nuts out there that are willing to kill themselves for a cause. Not a real surprise, nor is it different than any other time in history. The idea that they're organized, well financed, and wish to destroy the US is purely imaginary. The reason we haven't had an attack in the past 6 years isn't because we've stopped them all, its because the enemy doesn't exist. Do you really think that an organized, well financed enemy wouldn't be able to pull off any attack in 6 years? Not even bombing a school or some hit and run shootings? You think a group so incompetent they can't even do that would be able to pull off 9/11? 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. Imagining that there is no AlQueda sounds far more nutty than the idea that there are religious fanatics that want to cleanse the world of the infidels.

Re:Since when

[wellingj]

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

[TimedArt]

Plenty of classified research is done at universities. "Classified" doesn't necessarily mean dealing with weapons or secret aircraft. The university I work for does a significant amount of classified research, much of it medical.

Re:Since when

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there have been a lot of bombs going off around the world, but do you think that the people that did it are part of some highly organised terrorist group hell bent on destroying the US, or small groups of misguided individuals who copied someone else's idea knowing it would be blamed on Al-Quaeda?

Re:Since when

[purduephotog]

Dude, you are a nutcase.

The guys that actually did Sept 11? They're dead. That happens when a plane slams into a building/ground/concrete structure.

Oh, you mean the ones that planned the attack? The US is slowly picking them off. They don't stand on a podium and announce their evil plans (like Dr. Evil), they use a dozen cutouts with hand couriered messages and ignore cell phones/wired phones for fear of being killed. It's a pretty good fear, so far.

And I will not defend anything else you say about the administration because it makes me sick. But please give credit where credit is due- the US is going after the people that orchestrated Sept 11th, and will, more likely than not, find them (dead or alive).

Re:Since when

[lymond01]

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

[Zeinfeld]

Of course, that pantie torture is NOTHING compared to the three square meals, prayer time and air conditioning (that part the Prez DID order, that fucker!). I mean, all these guys were doing was planning to blow up a grade school in their home country and then ambushing the American invaders when they showed up to help save the Muslim children. How dare we treat them so rough!

The pictures from Abu Ghraib demonstrate how ridiculous your statement is.

And don't try to pretend that they were an exception. Someone decided to apply the Resistance to Interogation training protocol as an interogation protocol. it is stupid tactically and stupid strategically.

Lets take tactics first. Yes you can make people talk with torture. Everyone talks, even people who don't know anything. And those who do know what you want to know lie. A real life Jack Bauer would spend his entire time chasing dead end leads.

Remember the run up to the 2004 election when there was a security scare every week which would quickly be exposed as fake? Thats the quality of information you get from torture.

Now lets look at the strategic side. In particular lets look at the career of Zarqawi, who was a small time crook who didn't amount to anything until he was arrested by Jordanian police and tortured.

Instead of turning the US into a police state looking for terrorists lets stop making more of them.

The pictures of Abu Ghraib have entirely erased the images of 9/11 in the eyes of most of the world. They are the biggest recruiting sargeant for Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Shi'ia insurgents, and all the other groups in the region who mostly spend their time fighting each other but thanks to the incompetent in chief are fighting US forces instead.

Re:Since when

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:Since when

[Brad1138]

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

[theuedimaster]

This isn't about terrorists sonny, this is about espionage as a whole. It's a very, very general action they're taking to counter ALL foreign forces. And that's what one of the parents mentioned... what foreign forces? We're going through all this trouble and fear for... what exactly?

It's this atmosphere that our government is creating that is so infuriating... giving unlimited powers to the executive, putting missiles in front of Russia, pointing guns at Iran... shit man, are we protecting ourselves or are we trying to start a war here?

There have always been threats in front of us, but the important thing is to not let it ruin our lives. As another parent said, when did universities become a division of the FBI? The FBI can do their jobs, and they don't have to turn our society into a surveillance tool to accomplish their jobs. The FBI is there to protect us from threats so we don't have to worry about them... injecting fear into America is the antithesis of this mission.

Re:Since when

[vandan]

Don't assume that since Emperor Dubya is president that he's in control of anything, including his own bladder. He's a figurehead. There most certainly are people in control of things, and they use Bush to deflect people's attacks from themselves. If you look at Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the neo-con gang, you'll find that they are incredibly capable people ... unfortunately they're also incredibly evil people.

The reason no-one's tracked down Bin Laden is simple: the Bin Laden Group is Bush's biggest financial backer. The Bin Laden dynasty and the Bush dynasty go back a long way.

The reason why no-one's made any serious in-roads into bringing the so-called terrorists under control is that terrorism is the best thing that happened to ultra-conservative politics in the past century. It's vitally important for the Republicans, and increasingly more important for the Democrats, to have a horrible outside threat to protect the masses from, and to justify the increasing militarisation of the world, both domestically and internationally. Look at the rights we've lost in the name of protecting ourselves from the boogey man ... this article is but one example.

Re:Since when

[cygonik]

There's a great saying, and it's been said a lot, in different ways, but it boils down to this: If we restrict liberty to attain security, we will have neither. No, it's not imaginary. ..and no, it's not being handled well. I happen to think that freedom is not just a good thing, but that it is a necessary thing - just as responsibility and accountability are. It has also been demonstrated that our government, as it clamps down on terrorism, is sacrificing what I consider to be the lifeblood and identity of the nation - that freedom which many hold dear. The more that freedom is taken, the more likely it is that some people will get severely pissed off. The more pissed off people there are, the more likely it is that there will be pissed off people that are more open to persuasion by unsavory ideals. That would mean a higher likelihood that someone here will bomb things, which is, as far as I'm concerned, not a good condition to be in as a country. There are quite a few questions to be answered, that should be funded and looked into. What is more likely to cause a breakdown of social order in the united states - loss of freedom, or terrorist bombings? How likely is it that we will actually succeed at preventing terrorist bombings using methods that destroy or erode the freedom we ideologically base our national identity on? It seems insane that these people want to bomb us. But they are probably not insane. Why did they do it? What motivates these groups? What motivates the leaders of these groups? What methods of preventing bombings are successful, and which ones merely seem like they should work, or provide a false sense of security? For things we implement because of urgency - are those going as planned? Are they working? How can we increase our government's introspection without compromising our capacity to act? ..and most importantly, to me - since we are more and more required to endure the loss of freedoms anyway, are there also government-funded research programs looking into finding new ways to avoid getting bombed -- preferably ones which don't erode or destroy the freedom (and consequentially the security) of the nation? I think we should get sociologists, game theorists, political science majors, former military generals, etc. into a working team to attempt to address these kinds of issues. ..of course.. ..aside from the fact that it would be more difficult than getting a party of twelve to agree on a common pizza, it's probably not likely to get funded and implemented in the first place, even if the idea occurs to someone to make a bill for it or some such.

Re:Since when

[Moridineas]

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:Since when

[ArcherB]

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

[caranha]

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. Heh, the funny thing is: I bet there is a minority (very very small minority) of people in any country who would like to destroy the us while the majority want to be left alone.

At least in the country where I live, and the one where I was born, this is true. And both are far away from the middle east.

Probably the quoted statement is true even for the US itself :-/

Re:Since when

[dangitman]

In the U.S.A., our government is a direct reflection of the votes of the people in the country

Actually, it's not. You can onlhy vote for candidates and parties. You don't actually vote on the issues you want to vote on. If you don't agree with "the whole package" of a candidate, you don't really get a say. You might, say, vote Republican because you are a "fiscal conservative" - but your vote might be interpreted as a vote for the Religious Right, or an anti-gay agenda - even if you disagree with those aspects. Alternatively, you might vote Democrat because they're "not as bad as Republicans" - but that doesn't mean you voted for Democrats supporting a war in Iraq.

It's not a very direct reflection at all. In fact, it's a very distorted reflection, because the most extreme wedge issues tend to drive voters and politicians - not the mainstream beliefs that most hold. US politics is more a reflection of the lobbying powers of the monied classes, and the efforts of splinter groups.

So what you're really saying is that your whole country sickens you.

Most people in America don't vote.

Re:Since when

[Vellmont]

Oh, you mean the ones that planned the attack? The US is slowly picking them off.

See, the problem here is that "slowly" part. Why the hell did we go into Iraq when we should have been concentrating everything at taking down Al-Queda? I'll grant you that the OP is a nutcase that thinks the administration is a bunch of boobs on purpose (guess he's never run into a real gang of incompetents that back each other up).

The US has lost so much internationally because of this idiotic Iraq war. After 9/11 we had the whole world behind us and it was hard to say no to helping us find Bin Laden. That kind of thing takes international co-operation, not empty threats of "dead or alive" (you can't threaten someone when you don't even know where they are). Now less than 6 years later we've squandered all of that on a failed war and Bin Laden still runs free. Now we've got everyone chasing at their own shadows with the "find the terrorist" business.

Re:Since when

[Rakishi]

1. Fight them and attempt to deny them success in their attacks and their goal of gaining power. You mean fail to fight them, increase their recruitment numbers, spread anti-American feeling, provide free propaganda for terrorist groups, attack a country that had little to do with terrorism, help spread fundamentalist islam into another nation and in general help them out? This isn't even counting all the fun training and money we gave them in the past. Since of course all those groups we're paying in the middle east to fight for us will never ever turn on us in 20 years, after all Saddam has remained a faithful ally of the... oh wait a second.

You fight terrorism by not talking about it, not publicizing it and not giving it credibility. It's in the end a propaganda war where you you're never supposed to directly rebut the opponents points as then you not only give credibility to his points but also are then forced to play on their field where you likely can't win.

The US isn't fighting back, it's cowering in fear and playing the game that the terrorists want it to play.

Re:Since when

[dangitman]

The choice to not vote is still a choice, and we are accountable for our choices.

So tell me, what exactly are the people who didn't vote accountable for? Not liking any of the candidates?

And if enough people understood that the two party system is what is holding us back, people would work to change it.

I think plenty of people understand it. But how do you change it? The two party system excludes anybody from other parties. So, how do you vote for an alternative, when nobody from one of the two parties will support that alternative? the only way would be to get a third party elected - which the two-party system prevents.

So once again, you can't blame it on those bastards in Washington D.C. Those bastards are there because we willed it.

Bullshit. Why are they blameless? I can certainly blame them for being bastards. There's plenty of blame to go around. It's true, it's not just them. But why can't I blame them for their actions?

Also, it's not true that people really willed this into existence. I don't think many people actually wished for a fucked up government and a two-party system. That already existed before most of us came along. The point is that you can't blame everybody, because not everybody wished for that, and some people opposed it. How am I to blame if my neighbor votes for a corrupt politician? I can't force my neighbor to vote the way I'd like him to.

Is someone born into a totalitarian dictatorship to blame for the dictator being in power?

Re:Since when

[bytesex]

The first crusade was in 1099. Islam was 1099 years old in 1731. In 1731, the Ottoman empire was on decline. Think about it - such parallels are useless.

Re:Since when

[Elrac]

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

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks for the support. It does matter, because it's not just fun standing up to someone ranting angrily at you who's killed people for a living, and is dehumanizing you the way they did the people they killed before.

But I'm not scared of them. I'd rather die than live in fear. I don't let bullies control my life. And I've found that standing up to them typically reveals them to be cowards so scared that all they know how to do is fight. They're sad, and all too human.

Shows of reasonable support from bystanders is a powerful reminder to these alienated bullies that people can get along without fighting. So I thank you twice, once for the bully who owes you, but could never admit it, for showing them how to act.

Paranoid

[Wellington Grey]

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

Re:Paranoid

[Gorshkov]

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?

Actually, it's neither paranoid or counterproductive .... if you're working for a defense contractor, the government, or the military directly.

It's a pretty standard set of criteria that's probably been in use since the mid-'50s ... and is very usefull.

It's just not applicable in an academic environment. This isn't an attempt to curtail freedoms as much as it is an example of total ignorance of how academia works.

One notch at a time

[Colin Smith]

That's how you tighten the cuffs.

Serious?

[BWJones]

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]

"...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]

[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.

Come on

[chuckymonkey]

OHHHHH NOOOEEESSS! Teh trrists r in ur skools stealin ur secrets! Seriously though, when does it end? At what point do we say enough is enough with this fearmongering?

Blog article seems confused

[Animats]

The DIA guidelines on "combating the insider threat" 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.

Re:Blog article seems confused

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making two common mistakes: thinking that today's enemies are tomorrow's enemies, and that only our enemies spy/steal from us.

As for the article at hand, this is just an over-reaction. The FBI's just making educational institutions aware that they may be targeted for espionage, and what to look for. This knee-jerk "ZOMG! The MAN is oppressing me!" reaction is really stupid.

Deceptive headline designed to distort the truth

[mc6809e]

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.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Kohath]

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.

Read TFA

[Lambticc]

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.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[fredklein]

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


Since when is having a bit of cash ("Unexplained affluence") a suspicious activity?
Since when is failign 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?
etc.
etc.

Monitoring does not violate freedoms

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

You can still do exactly what you were doing before. You don't need permission to do those things, but this article says that people should be taking note of them because they're suspicious activities. Lacking privacy != Taking away your ability to do things.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to privacy.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[fredklein]

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:

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..."

typical brain-dead bureaucrats

[dltaylor]

Obviously, the FBI has a large number of brain-dead bureaucrats that serve no purpose but to create busy-work for others. The FBI needs to have its budget cut severely and get rid of them, reducing the number of Treasury bonds that we sell to the Chinese to pay for them.

That entire list is untenable, and even proposing such a list is entirely out of touch with reality, as well as any oath to "support and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America".

"Unexplained affluence", for example, waiting tables to supplement the trust fund, or the "photo shoot", may be legal but socially unacceptable and, therefore, kept quiet.

To whom is a college student required to report "overseas travel", such as spring break in the islands or Mexico, skiing in Canada, and vacation trips, other, perhaps, than the parents funding their education?

"information outside the job scope" is called education and all students and faculty are supposed to be seeking that.

There are no usual work hours for students.

There are many foreign nationals legally studying and employed in the United States. There is no requirement, nor should there be, for anyone other than holders of certain security clearances to keep track of and report the nationality of the acquaintances, nor their possible position within a foreign government.

"attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know"? What is "need to know" other than an open-ended control trip? It is a bureaucratic tool most usually used to hide information that is embarrassing to some official or agency, not dangerous. The whole "Freedom of Information Act" is exactly the opposite of its name. Unless there is an immediate danger of physical harm to the citizens of the nation, the information should be published, and not hidden in layers of bureaucracy intended to prevent the citizens of the United States from making informed decisions (yeah, I know, as if they could tear themselves away from the celebrity du jour) about the actions of their government.

"unexplained absences"? Explain to whom? Besides, all any potential foreign agent would have to say is "I was: hung over; playing StarCraft(or WoW); picking up my clothes from ...", and no one could be suspicious.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[gorehog]

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.

...and?

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:...and?

[IdleTime]

Well, whether you like it or not, things have gotten several magnitudes worse on Bush watch..

And by your signature, one can see you are a bit wacko. Saying Booth was a patriot is like saying Lee Harvey Oswald was a patriot. So, yes, you are a loony.

Re:...and?

[mcpkaaos]

Besides the president does not have *that* much power in the first place

You haven't been paying attention. Between the signing statements, warrant-less wiretapping, war against a nation without a declaration of war and thus the express permission of Congress and the American people (such as the war powers dictate), I'd say Bush has exploited more power than any one person in the history of this country.

Let's not forget the Patriot Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security, or appointing a crony as AG who turns around and purges the Dept. of Justice of lawyers and replaces them with Bush-loyalists, either.

How about a more recent event, in which both offices of the executive branch are failing to comply with their own executive order regarding the handling of secret information?

Need more? The list is long with this guy.

Great indicators...

[Trerro]

"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.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Kohath]

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

[gorehog]

You are wrong. Eliminating wrong leads is one thing. Investigating people where no crime has been committed? That is wrong. What is not relevant about the FBI asking for reports on innocent activities? Do you really want the FBI researching every dead end that college administrators could generate?

I never said anything about the FBI coming to get us all. They just want to chill the elements in society who might investigate them. Notice, please, that this request was not made to Construction companies or Bankers. So, on this, you are right. They're not after us all, they're only after people in Academia. But that was stated in the article, right?

They are NOT specifying behaviors. They're not saying "Turn in anyone who spends a lot of time picking locks" or "Please let us know if anyone you see buys a lot of diesel fuel and fertilizer." That's behavior. The FBI is asking people to make judgments and then turn someone in based on that judgment. So, Psych Department head says "Gee, does Adjunct Ahmed really need to know how to use a backhoe? Why IS he learning that? " And he speed dials the FBI, and next thing you know, Ahmed is being investigated because he wanted to do some landscaping without telling anyone.

It's not crazy at this point in this administration to expect illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior from the government. In fact I am simply stating the worst case scenario because I will no longer give the benefit of the doubt. If you want me to believe the good intentions of the FBI then the FBI will have to demonstrate those good intentions and not expect me to grant them "the benefit of doubt." In fact, given all the evidence at hand it is ignorant and stupid to not expect the worst from the current administration.

Sounds like any gov. agency is suspect

[grundy]

Warning signs from the FBI document:

Repeated irresponsibility.
An "above the rules" attitude.
Financial irresponsibility.
Repeated impulsive behaviors.
Extreme immaturity.
Willingness to violate the rights of others to achieve one's own ends.
Willingness to break rules or violations of laws and regulations.

Sounds like most gov'ment agencies, FBI, CIA, Congress, Executive Branch, etc. etc. etc. Phone it in, start the investigation...

Let's get some perspective here...

[Independent Voter]

I'm a huge civil libertarian and in fact will be engaging in some ACLU protest activities this week in DC. But this article on Slashdot is really almost to the point of being misleading. Read the original article and guidance document and you'll see that:

1) The guidance doc specifically says it is applicable to people with access to classified info. Not just students (unless they're working on classified info).

2) The guidance doc also goes to some length to say that these signs don't mean someone is a spy, that people should respect each other's privacy and that good judgment needs to exercised when considering whether to report something.

3) These are not being foisted on universities and there is no apparent attempt to try to get universities to enforce these guidelines. This is essentially a "heads up" list of things that often are associated with people who spy.

And remember: these are guidelines for people working on CLASSIFIED info. I HOPE people who work on (legal) classified projects keep an eye out for these kinds of things.

Now if we could only keep the USDOJ from spying on us without any court oversight, I'd feel MUCH better!

FBI

[Mark_MF-WN]

Ultimately, it's a good thing that the FBI is protecting us. By monitoring students, we can make the USA so much like Iran that Islamic extremists will start supporting America, not fighting it.

Secret detention centers, an unaccountable police force, an excessively powerful and secretive security force, and a war-based economy. Hmm... what does that remind me of? And now, we have government harassment of students, as if they're the only ones who ever support terrorists (rather than the US government itself, which paid for the formation of most of these terrorist groups in the first place).

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Anonymous Coward]

Preventing crimes from being committed is always "wrong" then.

Nice job setting up a straw man, you fucking, ignorant asshole. YOU are the moron who injected ALWAYS into the conversation. It's clear to anyone who believes in the Constitution that there's a middle ground between "preventing crimes is ALWAYS wrong" and living under constant police surveillance. It's called "REASONABLE CAUSE", you stupid son of a bitch.

That was a lot of text that doesn't point out who lost their freedom, nor does it say what freedom was lost.

You just don't understand the word "chilling", do you? Sure you're free to go where you want, but wouldn't you feel inhibited from visiting friends who were foreign nationals if you had to think in advance what construction might be put on it by the guy who parks outside your house, follows you to and from work, always shows up to eat in the same restaurant as you and shows up in the seat behind you and your date every time you take in a movie?

This is exactly the same police state behavior that my daughter encountered some years back. She was dating a guy in a very affluent nearby town and drove to his house in a ratty old VW bug. As soon as she entered the town limits, she was tailed for many blocks by a cop, who finally tagged her for failing to make a full wheel stop at an arterial (stop) sign. The message was clear -- we don't want your kind around here.

I have a friend in another state who was always being stopped for bullshit reasons by the local cops. He worked nights in a factory, didn't shave a lot, generally looked scruffy and drove an older car. One night, he slowed down and was redlighted by a cop. He took the nearby offramp and was told he was being tagged for driving too slowly on a freeway. When he explained that he was approaching his turnoff when redlighted, the bastard cop tagged him for turning off without signaling, which he had done because the he was under the cop's direction to pull off the freeway. All of this horseshit stopped when he started diving a brand new car to work. Funny.

Need more? It's now cause for a stop and harassment to drive fully within the law. Years back, it was routine for the Nevada highway patrol to stop anyone out in the boonies who was driving a nice car under the speed limit. The reason was always some BS reason like "weaving in traffic" or some other canard that's impossible to defend against. This gave the cop an opportunity to see if the driver was black and, preferably, if he had fast food containers on the floor. This was considered reasonable cause to search the car for drugs.

The position was that drug runners drove nice cars, didn't waste time stopping to eat at restaurants and drove well inside the limit so as not to get stopped for speeding. Extra points if the driver was black.

If you think having to live with the state breathing down your neck all the time, looking for trouble in anything you do, does not equate to a loss of freedom, I have to wonder exactly which totalitarian state you're from.

Go on, dipshit -- attack me fo my language -- it's perfectly OK wih me if you choose to ignore the substance of what I've said.

no attack in 6 years?

[commodoresloat]

I'm guessing you don't live in London, Spain, Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, or Iraq. There are in fact organized groups of terrorists out there, and they want to cause real damage. And, sadly, there are far more than a "few hundred" of them and they are hardly "nuts." You're right that the US Government has exaggerated the threat to the American homeland for its own purposes -- most of the terrorists are fighting closer to home to affect governments that have more direct interaction with them -- but to say these organizations don't exist is hiding your head in the sand.

It's worth it.

[moxley]

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:Those are NOT reasons

[rben]

A well trained soldier will always be able to defeat a horde of fanatics.

Rome thought so, too.

Re:Shut up cunt

[MarcoG42]

I'm in NYC. City Hall. Worth St. My brother is in the Army, in Iraq right now doing a job that he doesn't even want to be doing, but he does it. It takes a *real* man to do a dirty job that no one else wants to do, including the person doing it. Just because those men and weoman are over there doing what they do doesn't mean they agree with it. Your comments clearly show that you have *no* clue about the average Soldier's, Marine's, Airman's or Sailor's outlook on life. While it may be true that some of them are of the "KILL KILL KILL" ilk, the vast majority just want it to be over so they can come home to their family. So, until you risk your life on a daily basis for people like yourself, who spit on those that step in front of a bullet aimed at you, shut your fucking mouth. Your ignorance is embarrassing us.

Re:You want to know how it started?

[rben]

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:Shut up cunt

[NEW22]

I am a little confused by comments like yours. On one hand you say your brother is doing a job he doesn't want to do, yet he does it anyways, duty, willing to do the tough things, etc. You also say that just because those men and women are over there doesn't mean they agree with it.

At the end of your comment you say that these people are risking their lives one a daily basis for people like us (non-military types), ready to "step in front of a bullet aimed at you".

I believe that many soldiers are willing to give it all to protect America and Americans, but being a soldier does not automatically mean you are doing so. In the end, whatever a soldier feels, he is at the call of the President. You can obey every order, and sacrifice your life, and yet hurt America. Take these people you mention in your post who are over there, yet don't agree with it. They don't agree with the war, yet continue to fight, because in the end a soldier executes orders, and that duty takes precedence over any personal moral stance they may have.

That is one sacrifice I am happy to say I am unwilling to make.

phd students, students working on research...

[l3v1]

...projects, phd students, researchers, most of them meet almost all of the criteria mentioned in the article. Let's see.

Unexplained affluence

Maybe a valid point, but I fail to see how this is the FBI's concern, tax dept. might be interested though.

failing to report overseas travel

Hmm. So, they need you to report where you travel ? Nice. I remember times in my country when you had to do this, and then they didn't allow you to travel even if you reported that you wanted to go. Moreover, you reporting your traveling wishes made you a suspect of ... well, anything you can think of.

showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope

Which is something I and my coworkers almost constantly do. As researchers and scientists - however funny that might sound to some people - I'd even expect my colleagues to do so.

keeping unusual work hours

Now come on :)) What is unusual ? Working late ? Sometimes coming in late ? Sometimes working during the weekend ? At night ? Then we're all doomed :)

unreported contacts with foreign nationals

Now that's something I like. I mean I shouldn't talk with my foreign acquaintances anymore ? I shouldn't get new ones ? Or I could but report them beforehand ? Rrright.

unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials

I might agree with this to some extent, but it is still too vaguely formulated to be trusted. The problem is, you can't trust these people that they won't use this vagueness in the formulation to turn everyone they'd like into a suspect.

attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know

With this I also have one problem: we're not the military here. Need-to-know is not that black and white in the real world as in the service. And not that black and white like they thought it to be during the cold war. Something that at times might be considered a security measure, might be just a full blown social hindrance later on.

unexplained absences

I can't even remember how many university classes I have skipped. 'Cause of work, of laziness, or 'cause I just didn't like them. Yet I managed to get two masters and a phd and I'm working, I'm paying my taxes and I consider myself a patriot. Bzzt, wrong, you missed your classes, spy scum !
 

Re:Those are NOT reasons

[AndersOSU]

I was with you until we got here:

The Israeli culture is vastly superior to that of their enemies because it's an advanced technological culture. A well trained soldier will always be able to defeat a horde of fanatics.

Really? Value judgments on a culture because of technology, and ultimately wealth?

Besides it isn't really the Israeli "technological culture" it is mostly the US and Europe exporting arms to the Israeli army, which, incidentally, aren't available to the Arab states. I'm not trying to downplay Israel's significant accomplishments, but I'm not about to gloss over their significant mistakes.

My take: a free Jewish state in the Arabian peninsula is a good thing, however, any state that ignores the property rights of its neighbors and ethnic undesirables is acting unjustly.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Lockejaw]

Those are from a document intended for government employees, and make no sense when you try to apply them to academia.

Yes, those guidelines seem like they would generate a lot of false positives at a university:

• unexplained affluence -- generally it's just some kid with parents who pay for everything
• failing to report overseas travel -- to whom? it's really not the university's business
• showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope -- many students are still discovering new interests
• keeping unusual work hours -- I thought this was the norm for college students
• unreported contacts with foreign nationals -- sounds like they're expected to log all their internet discussions
• unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials -- this actually sounds reasonable
• attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know -- this may be reasonable, depending on what they're trying to access
• unexplained absences -- again, this is pretty typical for college students

Iraq

[Khammurabi]

There are numerous places on the earth where great wrongs (like state-sponsored murder and such) are committed. I'm glad that the US occasionally sends troops to try and punish these people. However, I wish the US would act more of a supporter and enabler than a freedom installer. We can not hope to facilitate a false rebellion. Either the people are ready to rise up against the evil forces lauding over them, or they are not. If they are ready our support is merely just to speed up the process. If they are not ready the process will drag out because they are unwilling to support it.

In the end it must be the people that rise up to fight, not the US. Because eventually the US will leave, as we are not often viewed as the legitimate government of the territories we control. And without this sense of legitimacy we cannot maintain control. So in the end if the people do not rise up and fight for the government they wish to have, they will not be able to keep it and the US will not be able to maintain it for them. Because if a person does not wish to again live under a dictatorship, when given the chance they will oppose it's reinstallment tooth and nail.

Our current occupation is fueling the Iraqi people to rise up, but they are rising against us. As such we must respect their wishes and leave (or crush them utterly). Our vision of Iraq is not what their vision of Iraq is. They may be wrong, we may know they to be wrong in this decision, but it should be their decision to make. They will probably be burned by their decision, but there is nothing that I currently see the US can do to change their minds.

Bad things may happen from their decision, but they will learn from it. We can not help those who are now unwilling to receive our help. (And I refer to the people of Iraq, not the leaders of it.)