Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
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...
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"...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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.The Govt is what is 'cartoonish'.
Stolen from : http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=96:
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..."
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.
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.
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.
And the difference is? Other that in the first cold war, the boogeyman existed and had an army, while this one is imaginary?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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.
Money is the root of all evil?
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.
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
AccountKiller
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.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
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.
... this article is but one example.
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
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...
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)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
AccountKiller
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?
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
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.
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.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
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.
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.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
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.)