Slashdot Mirror


Tracking the Terrorists Online

Anti-Globalism points out a story at the German magazine Spiegel profiling two small US companies that monitor terrorist networks online — IntelCenter and SITE Intelgroup. "[Founders of the two companies] Venzke and Devon are two of the most prominent 'terror trackers' worldwide. In the United States, and increasingly in other countries, the term refers to a community of people who spend their days analyzing traces that al-Qaida and affiliated organizations leave behind, especially on the Internet. The two Americans are essentially digital trackers in the age of globalized terrorism. IntelCenter and SITE Intelgroup are the companies that Venzke and Devon, respectively, have founded. They enjoy a strong reputation within the relatively small community of terrorism experts. Beyond that, though, they are virtually unknown ..."

98 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Quote: "Beyond that, though ..." by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Insightful

    " they are virtually unknown..."

    Exactly as it should be.

    Imagine a large, popular website that listed people who did some little thing that might fit a "terrorist profile".

    Can you say "pandemonium and vigilantism"? Sure. I knew you could.

    1. Re:Quote: "Beyond that, though ..." by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you say "pandemonium and vigilantism"? Sure. I knew you could.

      Can you say sued for libel and slander? The government can do practically the same thing by having its secret list and stopping 6 year olds from getting on a plane because they have the same name of an alleged "terrorist".

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Quote: "Beyond that, though ..." by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you say sued for libel and slander?

      Can you say "protected by government that fabricates need a for security and claims it is more important than the long term health of a free society"?

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:Quote: "Beyond that, though ..." by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine a large, popular website that listed people who did some little thing that might fit a "terrorist profile".

      By some peoples arguments, I MUST be a Terrorist.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  2. Government Aid by nickswitzer · · Score: 1

    If these people are able to track down terrorists, should they feel obligated to share their techniques with the government, and try to unite their resources to track and apprehend the terrorists, faster and sooner?

    1. Re:Government Aid by pxlmusic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or maybe they're allowed to do what the government cannot?

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    2. Re:Government Aid by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...And what can the government not do to track down "terrorists"? They use the word terrorist and congress will pay them millions of dollars to do track down these "terrorists", they don't need to get warrants, they can tap phones, etc. The government can and has shredded the constitution and burned it to ashes. There is no limited government when they say the word terrorist.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Government Aid by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      which is why i'm wondering what a couple of dudes in their basement are doing that the supposed top dogs the government hires cannot.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    4. Re:Government Aid by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Something that involves competence, if we're lucky.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    5. Re:Government Aid by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      lucky being the operative word.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
  3. Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by Anik315 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These organizations have not contributed to the prevention of single terrorist act and exist mainly to monitor people on an arbitrary basis. Who pays for this crap?

    1. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by mi · · Score: 1

      These organizations have not contributed to the prevention of single terrorist act

      Care to substantiate this (rather bombastic) claim?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by rtr1212 · · Score: 1

      You do with your tax payer dollars.

    3. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

      These organizations have not contributed to the prevention of single terrorist act and exist mainly to monitor people on an arbitrary basis.

      Uh-oh. Here is more... Not only is your "insightful" remark unsubstantiated (you failed to prove it), it is also wrong (I 'm proving it wrong). From the article (I highlighted the most important parts for you):

      Katz almost single-handedly uncovered a number of funding sources of Islamists. Katz, a Jew born in Iraq who speaks Arabic, infiltrated Islamist organizations disguised as a Muslim woman -- and wearing recording equipment. She passed her findings on to the authorities. There were court cases, and some organizations were banned. And SITE has certainly been successful. There is a reason Katz has a letter of appreciation from FBI Director Robert S. Muller III hanging on the wall in her office. The company's work has also led to arrests abroad, including those of would-be suicide bombers who had left farewell letters in chat rooms that SITE managed to penetrate.

      Who pays for this crap?

      From the article, again:

      Almost every statement by Osama bin Laden published on the Internet, to name only one example, is first made public by SITE and IntelCenter. They find the statements in the confusion of Web sites associated with al-Qaida, and within seconds they have sent the first screen shots to their subscribers. It takes the companies only minutes to summarize bin Laden's speeches and within hours, they will have provided full translations, analysis included. A US magazine was one of their first subscribers. Government agencies in Switzerland and the families of Sept. 11 victims soon followed. SITE was in business. Today this former non-profit organization has been turned into a business enterprise.

      Read the article for more... Why wouldn't you? May you die a thousand death by choking on your anti-Bush bile...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Care to substantiate this (rather b0mbastic) claim?

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Thank you! Moderators, please mod the idiotic grandparent down!

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    6. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, I am not reading Slashdot anymore. Fascists took the thing over and are threatening to choke people and make them die a thousand deaths. Slashdot was the last democratic forum/site on the Internet, now it is dead, ruled by some Psychotic Bush followers.
      Probably Slashdot is also "cooperating" and giving our information to the NSA so they can send us to be tortured in Guantanamo, all for the glory of the pathetic and failed American "democracy"...

      And the funny thing: the captcha is CENSORS, because Slashdot will probably give my info to the Nazi-Fascist users like the so called "mi" and the so called "prune"...

    7. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by Anik315 · · Score: 1

      I concede that here was one claim in that entire article about the prevention an actual terrorist attack. However, there was no evidence that said individuals were actually going to carry out an attack other than the fact that they said something in an online chat room. Everyting else was mostly involved posing as a terrorist onine and seeing if they could someone to say something stupid.

      As for the other stuff about summarizing Osama Bin Laden's speeches, that's neat but it's not something any Arabic speaker couldn't do in 5 minutes. Why would you pay for that?

    8. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by mi · · Score: 1

      However, there was no evidence that said individuals were actually going to carry out an attack other than the fact that they said something in an online chat room.

      Actually, that's plenty... Getting a hint like that is likely to allow prevention of an attack and even of catching the terrorist.

      Why would you pay for that?

      Although you may discount their government customers as directed by the evil Bushitler, the non-governmental agencies, like magazines, clearly, pay them on their own free will...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      "there was no evidence that said individuals were actually going to carry out an attack other than the fact that they said"

      So if someone told you they were going to shoot your sorry ass, would you not believe them until they started shooting at you?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    10. Re:Part of Bush's "terror" industry... by mutantSushi · · Score: 1

      Almost every statement by Osama bin Laden published on the Internet, to name only one example, is first made public by SITE and IntelCenter. They find the statements in the confusion of Web sites associated with al-Qaida, and within seconds they have sent the first screen shots to their subscribers.

      Isn't the language in this article revealing?

      They're talking about PROGRANDA STATEMENTS put out by terrorist groups - which are useless UNLESS they are PUBLICLY disseminated. These guys just read the newspaper. Something MILLIONS of other people do, except those other people are A) BROWN B) MUSLIM C) NOT ZIONIST ENOUGH.

      This is just emblematic of the attitude that "it doesn't count", "hasn't been discovered", until a white man has done it, like Christopher Columbus 'discovered' America for the White Man (a true statement if it's premise is included). Every media outlet of every political slant in Arab countries/Pakistini is aware of this info AT LEAST AS QUICKLY as these groups, and likewise provide their own "analysis" (Who wants to bet that SITE/IntelCenter's "analysis" significantly diverges from native writers?)

      And it should be noted that SITE/IntelCenter is NOT making their translated info/analysis available to THE PUBLIC, they're making it available to their (Zionist-Apartheid-supporting) Government/Corporate clients, who then publicize this info TO THE EXTENT IT SERVES THEIR INTERESTS. This is just out-sourcing of CIA intelligence gathering, these guys' job is based on accepting the world view of the CIA/Western Imperialists.

      Anyone who IS interested in getting 1st-hand information & analysis could check out these sources, who are native speakers of Arabic, Persian, or Urdu(Pakistani): http://www.angryarab.blogspot.com/

      http://www.atimes.com/

  4. Re:This makes me sick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know what you mean. Especially when the real terrorists are those in the government.

  5. Problems... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is, what counts as a terrorist? Sure, we all think it means the people who put anthrax in the mail, blow up buildings and plant bombs. But it seems that lately (as in after 9/11) we count anything that doesn't agree with current US politics as terrorist. Not to mention on how we limit our constitutional rights to go after these "terrorists".

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Problems... by wigle · · Score: 1

      Anyone acts strongly against the interests of [insert country's name here] is usually called a 'terrorist'. It's a relational thing. Terrorists for Americans might be called a 'militia' in Iran, or vice-versa.

      --
      ::wigle::
    2. Re:Problems... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You're an economic terrorist because you're running a P2P app! The gov't funds MediaSentry.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Problems... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      The gov't funds MediaSentry.

      Citation needed.

      Sure, I think that the *AA is evil, and MediaSentry is bad, but unless you show me how the government funds it, I won't believe you. Sure, the government has managed to screw up enough things to keep our economy lagging behind for the next 70 years with the DMCA and such, but I can't find any information of MediaSentry being funded by the US government. The Chinese government though on the other hand did use MediaSentry.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Problems... by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if we harass and torture people, that seems to count as prevention nowadays, thus "justifying" our actions.

    5. Re:Problems... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm as sure as I can be that our founding fathers would be 'terrorists' to the british, some 200+ yrs ago.

      it IS highly relative. sometimes a revolution IS needed. and yes, it might require some non-polite actions to shake things up.

      what if our current government is in NEED of a re-boot (so to speak)? isn't it our duty to keep the gov on the up-and-up? the gov is mostly broken now and if there was ever a need for a rebirth, its now.

      problem is, anyone who, with good intentions, wants to bring about change - he'll be called a terr-a-wrist(tm) and locked away forever.

      it really is relative. crooked governments (like most of the world, today) hate a shake-up and so ALL citizen groups that try to regain a balance of power will be snuffed out as 'bad guys'.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Problems... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It's called jumping to conclusions!

      1) gov't would pay for information about terrorists
      2) p2p users are terrorists
      3) mediasentry tracks down p2p users

      therefore, the gov't pays mediasentry for information about p2p users.

      Oh, yeah:

      4) Profit!

      Can't be more obvious than that! :-)

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Problems... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Take no responsibility for actions you have no recourse to prevent. If the average American is responsible for any criminal actions of the United States government, so then is the average citizen of the world.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Problems... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I'm as sure as I can be that our founding fathers would be 'terrorists' to the british, some 200+ yrs ago.

      I don't think so at all. The founding fathers engaged in prolonged efforts at fixing the issues within the law by petitions etc. The Declaration of Independence was also a significant difference.

      If they had started killing English civilians on English soil in surprise attacks in an undeclared war, hiding their identities, then yes. They published their own names, gave an account of their grievances and their attempts at conciliation (having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" which the current crop of terrorists certainly do not have) and made a public declaration of their intent. I think they would to a man have despised today's terrorists.

    9. Re:Problems... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I can't tell if you're ripping off the government, people who hate the government, the RIAA, people who hate the RIAA, conspiracy theorists, or all five.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  6. Re:This makes me sick... by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    seeing as how the most popular method of government control has always been to make the people afraid of something so they'll do whatever you want them to, I'd say calling the government the terrorists is extremely insightful. They're the ones inciting and magnifying the terror.

    That being said, there'd be a lot less terror if we could take back control of the government. Now if only the sheep would realize this...

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  7. Experts? by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They enjoy a strong reputation within the relatively small community of terrorism experts

    Would those be the experts that have many failures, few successes, and been largely reactionary?

    1. Re:Experts? by Prune · · Score: 1

      Know of any others that can do significantly better?

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    2. Re:Experts? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Know of any others that can do significantly better?

      Sometimes the smart choice is to do nothing at all.
      Cue apoplexy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Experts? by Kaukomieli · · Score: 1

      Would those be the experts that have many failures, few successes, and been largely reactionary?

      No, that would be the security-theater experts.

  8. Re:This makes me sick... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What we really need is a congress, court system and president that follows the constitution. You know, it wouldn't really matter if they were right wing or left wing so long as they followed it, but it seems that the right wing is always pushing for warrantless arrests for "terrorists" and the left wing is always pushing for the abolishment of the second and parts of the first amendment. And we all know that at this time no third party candidate stands a chance.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  9. Re:This makes me sick... by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

    I take great offense to that.

    Everyone knows that the real terrorists are, in fact, insurance salespeople.

  10. Re:This makes me sick... by Locklin · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, when the name looses its appeal, they will make up a new [Devil|Witch|Jew|Nazi|Jap|Commie]. Gotta' have some way to strike up fear and justify war.

    --
    "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  11. shouldn't they remain "unknown"? by houbou · · Score: 1

    Is it true that sometimes there is Too Much Information?

    First and foremost, is how can these gentlemen do what they do and be legal? are they law enforcement agents?

    Shouldn't they be "unknown"? I mean, if they are to be known, doesn't it make them targets? and/or their jobs that much harder?

    Still, I have to admit, I envy them, I wish I could do such a job :)

  12. Wikipedia by AngryLlama · · Score: 1

    Obviously, all you need to do to track terrorists on the web is to datamine their Wikipedia pages.

  13. You bet by toby · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is how you terrorise innocent people. (Today in Minneapolis, not in some remote police state that you can ignore.)

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:You bet by bendodge · · Score: 1

      That piece is written with a very strong bias, and I was very disturbed over it until I read other news sources. According to other sources, the police did indeed have a warrant and they confiscated items such as "PVC pipe, chicken wire and duct tape. The RNC Welcoming Committee wanted to lock themselves together in human barricades called ''sleeping dragons.'' Also included in the raids were knives, flammable liquids, five-gallon buckets of urine, homemade caltrops (which are devices used to puncture bus tires), bolt cutters, sledgehammers, protective padding and plastic buckets that were cut into shields."

      Now while I do think this raid was extreme and unconstitutional, it isn't nearly as terrible as salon.com made it out to be.
      http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259223
      http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D92SNM600

      --
      The government can't save you.
    2. Re:You bet by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I guess most people use knives, buckets of Urine, flammable liquids, etc. when they exercise their free speech.

      These people were punks who probably would feel right at home at any riot. And, BTW, rioting is not free speech.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:You bet by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      And why is it that caltrops are used to puncture BUS tires?

      Many large police vehicles are bus based such as mobile command centers, transports for disorder control personnel are based on bus platforms (Blue Bird, Navistar, etc). If these can take out bus tires, then these can take out tires of such 'high value' vehicles as tanker trucks, especially those transporting flammable gases and liquids. If one were to realize the damage that these could cause with their ease of deployment, these are recognized as 'high leverage' (low tech, high impact) devices.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  14. election time! by toby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    make the people afraid of something so they'll do whatever you want them to,

    --
    you had me at #!
  15. You Terrorist! by Britz · · Score: 1

    Arrest him! Now!

  16. You must be new around here by toby · · Score: 1
    --
    you had me at #!
  17. memo to pro-Bush by toby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    May you choke on your beloved waterboarding, spying, illegally kidnapping, profiteering, lying administration.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:memo to pro-Bush by mi · · Score: 1

      May you choke on your beloved waterboarding, spying, illegally kidnapping, profiteering, lying administration.

      I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal. Spying, taking prisoners, and occasionally even lying is what all administrations do... Profiteering? What profiteering? According to the definition:

      Political figures taking bribes and favors from corporations involved with war production have been called war profiteers. Abraham Lincoln's first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, was forced to resign in early 1862 after charges of corruption relating to war contracts. In 1947, Kentucky congressman Andrew J. May, Chairman of the powerful Committee on Military Affairs, was convicted for taking bribes in exchange for war contracts.

      Once you have any evidence of this administration's "taking bribes or favors" in the above-described manner, be sure to send that evidence to Senator Reed, Congresswoman Pelosi, and other leading opposition figures... Until then — shut up. Or, indeed, choke on your own bile.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:memo to pro-Bush by sycodon · · Score: 1

      That's right. Slashdot has been taken over by the fascists right. How else could such a third grade rant be modded insightful?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:memo to pro-Bush by janrinok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal.

      And that is the problem. If you now believe that, as a nation, it is entirely normal to torture people, then you you are no longer the nation that you once were, no longer the nation that you think you are, and you are no longer the nation that will be respected elsewhere. Of course, if that is not 'a big deal' then your argument is lost.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    4. Re:memo to pro-Bush by Prune · · Score: 2

      Regarding your signature: "Russia" should be in accusative declension, thus "Russiam". Ceterum censeo Russiam esse delendam.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    5. Re:memo to pro-Bush by ddoz · · Score: 1

      I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal.

      We both know waterboarding isn't the only torturemethod going on in these prisons.

      Spying on it's citizens, taking prisoners, and lying to start wars is what the Bush administration has been doing

      There, fixed that for you.

      Once you have any evidence of this administration's "taking bribes or favors" in the above-described manner, be sure to send that evidence to Senator Reed, Congresswoman Pelosi, and other leading opposition figures

      A bit difficult, seeing as how they've been shredding(or as they call it, 'losing') all of it the past 8 years. That you come off as completely apathetic and an apologist for this bullshit is downright disturbing.

    6. Re:memo to pro-Bush by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I assure you that Slashdot still remains a stronghold of leftist liberals.

    7. Re:memo to pro-Bush by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I see it's up to 5 now. What crap.

      It is insightful in one sense. It gives us great insight to the moderators.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:memo to pro-Bush by mi · · Score: 1

      And that is the problem. If you now believe that, as a nation, it is entirely normal to torture people

      It is not "normal". But waterboarding (a procedure, that leaves no long-lasting damage to the body) a few people is permissible — and always has been throughout history. The only real moral argument against it, is that you may be applying it to the wrong (innocent) guy — the same sole argument against death penalty, BTW.

      That's not the case with Bush's administration — not even the harshest of their critics doubts the guilt of the "victims", nor that they did know something important, that they would not reveal unless pressured.

      There are practical arguments against it — can you really trust something uttered by a torture-broken person? So, yes, you will have to verify their words, and keep in mind, who said them and under what circumstances — something you always have to do, BTW, even when dealing with an enthusiastically collaborating ally.

      And then, of course, there is the "slippery slope" argument — sorry, I don't really buy it here. Hundreds of lives now vs. the hypothetical hundreds torture victims in the future? The answer is very simple...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:memo to pro-Bush by erlehmann · · Score: 1

      The only real moral argument against it, is that you may be applying it to the wrong (innocent) guy

      The assumption of innocence is one of the foundations of due process.

    10. Re:memo to pro-Bush by janrinok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not even the harshest of their critics doubts the guilt of the "victims"

      I strongly disagree - that might be your view but it is by no means universal. However, being captured in Afghanistan is not, of itself, a crime. You might be correct in what you allege someone is guilty of but, if you are so sure, why not give those individuals their day in court? I believe it is because, without torture, you haven't got a case that would pass legal scrutiny anywhere in the world. And even with torture you haven't got a case but at least you can claim you have information. If you are so sure of your cause, why does the USA have to use rendition flights to hide its activities? Why does it conduct its interrogations outside of the USA but also outside of the theatre in which the individuals were captured? Tell me how many others have been captured in the USA as a result of that information that has been gathered by torture? If it is nothing more than a handful (and I think it is none at all!) then I cannot accept your argument that the torture is justified. It is NOT saving American lives. I suspect that you have lost far more American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than you could ever hope to save by gaining information by torture. It looks increasingly like an act of revenge by a country that didn't realise until 9/11 that it was as vulnerable to terrorists as any other, an act that is now being justified by 'protecting American lives'. Terrorism is not new in Europe but we have learned to deal with it, and to continue our lives without our Governments collapsing into a fear-induced panic.

      Incidentally, what was your stance when the IRA were murdering and bombing on the British mainland for nigh on 30 years? Did you doubt their guilt, or did you, like many Americans, choose to support the terrorist with funds or arms? Did you campaign like some of your countrymen that the Irish terrorist could not receive a fair trial in the UK? You have suffered a single attack and now the President believes that it justifies any crime. How does it make the USA better than any other third rate nation who uses similar tactics?

      And in case you feel the need to accuse me of being an armchair warrior, I have served in uniform at the sharp end in 3 conflicts but I have never felt the need to use tactics or procedures that did not have the full backing of the law, or which did not comply with the relevant international treaties and obligations.

      OK, I'm ready. Let the flames begin....

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    11. Re:memo to pro-Bush by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I don't see what's wrong with the GP post, but I think it's amusing that as soon as something that doesn't conform to Slashdot's usual leftist liberal dogma gets modded up, it's suddenly evidence of the "fascist right" taking over the site (which is firmly controlled by leftist liberals).

    12. Re:memo to pro-Bush by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of lives now vs. the hypothetical hundreds torture victims in the future? The answer is very simple...

      Yeah, and the answer isn't what you think it is.

      There has never been a case where waterboarding resulted in saving lives that were in immediate danger. The whole "ticking time bomb" scenario has never happened and is extremely unlikely to ever happen. Furthermore, even if it did happen the whole "oh you have to verify the words of enthusiastic collaborators too" excuse doesn't apply because if there is a ticking time bomb there is no way to verify until too late.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:memo to pro-Bush by baerm · · Score: 1

      It is not "normal". But waterboarding (a procedure, that leaves no long-lasting damage to the body) a few people is permissible â€" and always has been throughout history

      You must have heard this since it's been mentioned all over the place, but if you mean "always has been" to include the Germans and Japanese to which we (the U.S.) applied the death penalty after World War II for practicing this kind of torture, then we are in full agreement. We should take the people who have been responsible for water boarding currently and put them on trial for torture (Personally, I don't think the death penalty should be applied in these cases, but let a judge and jury decide).

      But also the argument 'always have' is flawed in the sense that I'm sure we both can think of many things that 'were always done' that we would now think of as wrong (e.g. slavery, genocide, torture *cough*, etc...).

    14. Re:memo to pro-Bush by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I'm not a right-winger, and I don't interpret "moderate" or "less conservative" statements as leftist liberal dogma.

    15. Re:memo to pro-Bush by mi · · Score: 1

      The assumption of innocence is one of the foundations of due process.

      Only in formally convicting the accused. In extracting intelligence information out of them, you go with the probabilities and their weights (see Mathematical Expectation). One one hand is the waterboarding's unpleasantries (u) with the probability of 1.0, and on the other — certain number of lives (N) with a probability of P.

      If the unpleasantry of losing each life is U, you've got the simple formula for when to order waterboarding: u*1.0 < N*U*P. You seem to think, the formula is never true, but that's simply stupid... Even if P (the probability, that the extracted information can save N lives) is low, the U ought to be quite a bit higher than u... So when you are holding a "high-value" detainee, who, you believe, knows something about an imminent attack, the P shoots up, and waterboarding is morally justified.

      Now, there is also a need for legal justification — you can't legally torture POWs no matter what (otherwise someone somewhere will always justify it with skillfully picked values for the above variables). However, none of the people, who waterboarding was applied to by the US, qualify as a POW.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:memo to pro-Bush by mi · · Score: 1

      I strongly disagree - that might be your view but it is by no means universal. However, being captured in Afghanistan is not, of itself, a crime.

      You are confusing two groups of people:

      1. Those captured in Afghanistan.
      2. Those, who were waterboarded on Bush administration's orders.

      Even if there are people belonging to both of the groups, neither of the groups is even a complete subset of the other — Khaled Mohammed, a "victim" of waterboarding, for example, was captured in Pakistan.

      None of the people in the second group is believed to be innocent by even the harshest critics of the Bush Administration. Just as I said.

      As for the rest of your argument, it goes out of scope of even the original anti-Bush posting, which was, in itself, largely off-topic, so I'll skip responding to it.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:memo to pro-Bush by erlehmann · · Score: 1

      Only in formally convicting the accused. In extracting intelligence information out of them

      Stop. Right. Here.

      Another foundation of due process is that before applying punishment, someone needs to be convicted.

      And yes, torture is punishment, as in "inflicting a penalty on, causing pain for some offense".

    18. Re:memo to pro-Bush by janrinok · · Score: 1

      KSB travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan in an attempt to evade capture. Fortunately, his security in Pakistan was not as good as it had been in Afghanistan.

      Torture of various kinds has been used against those who have been captured in the War on Terror. Waterboarding is only one example. The use of torture, rendition, illegal detention is being used because the USA hasn't got a case that will stand up in court. It matters not whether the individual was detained in Pakistan, Afghanistan or the USA. I still cannot agree that "None of the people in the second group is believed to be innocent by even the harshest critics of the Bush Administration." They are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - which the US has failed to do.

      As for the rest of your argument, it goes out of scope of even the original anti-Bush posting, which was, in itself, largely off-topic, so I'll skip responding to it.

      No response because it is off-topic, or perhaps because it cannot be countered by reasonable argument?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    19. Re:memo to pro-Bush by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Ooops s/KSB/KSM/ . Sorry about that :-)

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  18. no, no, by toby · · Score: 1

    Not against the interests of a "country" (which makes no sense); against the interests of the incumbent ruler or their backers! That might be as simple as financial interest, as we have seen time and time again.

    The definition already includes activists, dissenters, academics, and so on.

    In the end, the birth of an aggressive totalitarian state is, more than any other factor could possibly match, against the interests of America and its citizens. Fix that, will ya?

    --
    you had me at #!
  19. The real comms are steg layered on photo hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    These guys are just getting the amateurs as they play spy games. But a dollar is a dollar if someone wants to pay you.

  20. Re:This makes me sick... by maxume · · Score: 1

    To help make your rhetoric effective, right english good: YOU MEANT LOSE!

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  21. Come on... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    If the "terrorists" such sneaky internet geniuses, wouldn't they have their own fake honey pots set up to alert them when someone starts getting too diligent in their research?

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  22. Duh.... by xednieht · · Score: 1

    according to dictionary.com:

    terÂrorÂism
    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

    So... in the world today that leaves us with Al Qaeda and the United States of America.

    So having two people found two companies to do this seems pretty logical.

    Is there a real story here or were you just trying to fill up some white space.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:Duh.... by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

      Of course the best terrorists are smart enough to do any violence or threatening themselves, and instead just use the fear created by other terrorists to get their agenda implemented.

      The "best" part in using that strategy is that you won't even get recognized as a terrorist by the majority, but instead as a patriot.

  23. "The location of SITE Intelgroup's headquarters... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    ...cannot be disclosed." But the names, photographs and ages of their founders can! Great work, Spiegel Online!

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  24. I am no Terrorist! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Of that I know
    The government actually
    Really told me so
    But there are some others
    Who say the rumors are true
    I may have blown up
    A Lego or two
    So now I can't fly
    On your fancy jet liners
    I just have to walk
    To the greasy spoon diners
    And wait for that Greyhound
    To South Carolina.

    --
    What?
  25. IntelCenter's Website by jbsooter · · Score: 1

    I went to the www.intelcenter.com and found that you can buy dvd's like Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) Videos Vol. 1 DVD: Our Blessed Jihad in Yunan and al-Qaeda Videos Vol. 135 DVD: Holocaust of the Americans in the Land of Khorasan, The Islamic Emirate: Shelling of the Crusaders' and Apostates' Base in Paktika for the low low price of $40.

    Whether they provide a real service to govt agencies or not, I find peddling terrorist propaganda under the guise of tracking terrorists online as a service to be quite distasteful. If they are doing as much business for govt agencies as the article suggests at the prices in their catalog, do you really think they'd resort to selling what really amounts to $40 fansubs of terrorist group videos? Translation services for news and govt agencies I could understand, but what they're doing is useless and distasteful.

    By the way, they have a special offer going on. " Buy any 3 DVDs, Get 1 DVD Free"

  26. Find 'Em and Kill 'Em by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Find the webmasters and kill them and you'll remove a lot of AQ's ability to recruit, organize, and direct.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  27. Re:This makes me sick... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Your a terrorist, you post as AC.

    What are you hiding from?

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  28. Re:Enough already by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Agreed, I wish everyone would stop supporting them.

    I don't give a crap about 9/11 but the United States still won't come out from cowering under the table. Victory to the terrorists!

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  29. The quote you're looking for: by jeti · · Score: 1

    "... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

    1. Re:The quote you're looking for: by v1 · · Score: 1

      I think most modern leaders follow that. Very unfortunate, but true.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  30. EXACTLY! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Precisely my point. There are bound to be lots of "false positives", as there always are whenever someone tries to "profile" people.

    And that is just not acceptable.

  31. Irrelevant! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Libel and slander suits can be bypassed because truth is an absolute defense. But one can publish truthful things that still constitute "false positives" for terrorist activity, according to some "profile". So it is not reasonable to rely on libel and slander laws to protect against this kind of atrocity.

  32. Re:This makes me sick... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

    I know what you mean. Especially when the real terrorists are those in the government.

    Yes, because doing things like blowing yourself in a crowded market place full of civilians is not terrorism at all. It's freedom fighting.

  33. Re:This makes me sick... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Oh what, because you think they terrorise people for political gain? The real terrorist were the people hijacking the planes in 9/11. They were the ones who shocked and frightened the nation in the first place. The government, while benefiting politically from this, was also responding to the fear already out there in the public. They would be lousy politicians and lousy leaders if they didn't do something about that fear.

    Without knowing exactly what went on inside the heads of the politicians, all I can say is this: everything they have done has been in the name of alleviating that fear. It's more been the press's position to use and intensify fear to sell their media, and consequently politicians have had their work cut out for them.

    In other words, I think you have reversed causation, and you are targeting politicians simply because they are the easiest target.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  34. more info: by toby · · Score: 1

    here.

    Reading this account it seems that a house was surrounded by heavily armed police, and a resident handcuffed, before a warrant was obtained or shown.

    The other accounts describe excessive intimidation.

    This kind of thing makes me very glad I don't live in your "free" society.

    --
    you had me at #!
  35. osama in myspace by bluhatter · · Score: 1

    "online" investigators and trackers - the most any of them ever do is type the name of their target into myspace or facebook.

    News reporters typically talk about computer technology like it's some sort of mystifying science that makes all things scary come to life and chase your children.

    --


    bluHatter
  36. Cato the Elder by mi · · Score: 1

    Ceterum censeo Russiam esse delendam.

    Gratias tibi ago!

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  37. How to define a terrorist..and deal with them by Schmyz · · Score: 1

    The US goverment defines terrorism as "a group who has the goal to inculcate fear in to a group or groups of people". How do you deal with these people: 1)Hunt them. 2)Find them. 3)KILL THEM. 4)repeat... Have we all forgotten the actions taken agianst innocent men woman and children? 9/11? World tradecenters in 93? Oklahoma City? TWA in 1985? Archillo Lauuro??? The war agianst America,by terrorists, was started in 1983 in Beruit. The US goverment just refused to allow us to fight back. We got a reminder when they toutured and executed Robert Stethem in 1985 on TWA 847. And once agian we were not allowed to fight back. The attack on the USS COLE...agian we had virtually no response...we refuse to take the gloves off because we have a goverment that feels it must always "wear the white hat." You dont cuddle or coddle these people. The choices are clear...you give up ALL your freedoms and adopt the feelings and beliefs they hold. Or.. You fight for, and defend your freedoms agianst them. "Agianst all enemies, Foreign and DOMESTIC".

  38. Move On. Please. by banished · · Score: 1

    Hey guys, moveon.org has their own web site; this is /.

    Then again...

    B.

    -- Knocking over more protesters with watercannons by 9 a.m. than most people do all day. --

  39. Give Them an Official Title by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 2, Funny

    Say, Witchfinder Pursuivant.

    --
    Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
  40. Re:This makes me sick... by CapitanMutanda · · Score: 1

    Google for Blackwater then tell me that the Bush & friends were fighting terrorism... also Goggle for Erik Prince

  41. No terrorists online by TrueRecord · · Score: 1

    Imho there's no terrorists online. They are out there off-line.It's very convenient to sit before a computer doing nothing though, I understand.

  42. Re:This makes me sick... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    OK I'll bite. What does a controversial private security firm contracted by the government have to tell us about the government's intentions?

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  43. Tracking May Work! by GPS+Tracking · · Score: 1

    The Government should plant gps tracking devices on the vehicles of suspected terrorists. This could lead them to the guys running the show.

    --
    Work smarter, not harder, with gps tracking
    1. Re:Tracking May Work! by GPS+Tracking · · Score: 1

      Good question. My answer would be, I'm not worried about it if I don't have anything to hide. By the way, having an overdue library book is not a crime.

      --
      Work smarter, not harder, with gps tracking