At least one attack a day

[jwocky]

I suggest to use this data as a quick filter to narrow down suspect pools. As I tried to explain several times over the last few months to you. We don't need to waste investigation time on soccer moms and pizza-ordering football fans. And yes, I suggest to have a closer look on the resulting narrower suspect pools, also in terms of possible motivation. We can, and the laws allows that already, have police to go to everybody's door and ask him why he bought potention bomb materials without having any other use for them. Police can ask anybody everything. That's the law. The problem is, no police force has the manpower to do it with millions of people and in my opinion, it is totally unnecessary to do it with millions of people. The trick, and the main use for profiles, is creating and narrowing down suspect pools. But that's the part you didn't get the past few attempts to explain reality to you, you are just too blindsided by buzzwords.

See, for you, including ethnicity in is "racial profiling". For me it is "dismissing people based on race and origins". Why this difference? Because you are obsessed with race, for me, it is just one of many attributes in a profile. So, for you, the obsessed with race racist, it is necessary to try personal insults, pulling the race-card, never contribute anything to the solution of any problem and drool all over the place. For me, it is more like a study and I have to give you, you are an excellent specimen of the mindset that sets ideology over the ability to do the own thinking. I am seriously considering, when I have the book, I have currently in work and come around to some writing about the mindset and mental development of terrorist times, to use some of your posts to explain, how those people think. See, always to use Mohammed Atta or Anders Breivik becomes old fast, but to have someone who so textbook always claims, everyone who doesn't have the same opinions as you do is "substandard" and goes so verbally aggressive as you do when challenged in his ideological believes and still hasn't killed anybody yet (I so hope, I am right in that, and please refrain from strangling anybody who doesn't bow to your "superior" view on things before I finished my next year books), well, such a specimen could be fun to dissect with more space than a forum post.

[Lydiot]

I suggest to use this data as a quick filter to narrow down suspect pools. As I tried to explain several times over the last few months to you. We don't need to waste investigation time on soccer moms and pizza-ordering football fans. And yes, I suggest to have a closer look on the resulting narrower suspect pools, also in terms of possible motivation. We can, and the laws allows that already, have police to go to everybody's door and ask him why he bought potention bomb materials without having any other use for them. Police can ask anybody everything. That's the law. The problem is, no police force has the manpower to do it with millions of people and in my opinion, it is totally unnecessary to do it with millions of people. The trick, and the main use for profiles, is creating and narrowing down suspect pools. But that's the part you didn't get the past few attempts to explain reality to you, you are just too blindsided by buzzwords.

In the US the constitution and legislation allows the police to ask anybody anything, that's absolutely 100% correct. The police in the US can even lie to people in the pursuit of information or confessions. However, there are actually very few requirements for people to actually answer the questions. Depending on the state, as far as I know, you're required to identify yourself and possibly also provide documents to prove your identity. But if someone goes and buys an item that is suspicious in context with all the other data (i.e. the person fits a profile) then if the police come knocking on that person's door and ask why they bought that item they can simply choose to say nothing or tell the cops to f-off. They actually don't need to answer, at all.

This is a practical and legal problem. So the question I'm asking isn't really answered. The only people you catch by going down that particular path are the dumbest of the dumb, who then end up either answering truthfully or some other way manage to give away some information that warrants further action. But just asking questions doesn't seem all that productive to me. Perhaps you have different experience from your door-knocking exercises (please share).

See, for you, including ethnicity in is "racial profiling". For me it is "dismissing people based on race and origins". Why this difference? Because you are obsessed with race,

LoL, you're the one who just brought it up - AGAIN!!!!

for me, it is just one of many attributes in a profile. So, for you, the obsessed with race racist, it is necessary to try personal insults, pulling the race-card, never contribute anything to the solution of any problem

So go back and continue your example of how to catch these criminals: We've established a profile, the police has knocked on the door and asked questions, and the suspect says nothing - now what?

and drool all over the place. For me, it is more like a study and I have to give you, you are an excellent specimen of the mindset that sets ideology over the ability to do the own thinking. I am seriously considering, when I have the book, I have currently in work and come around to some writing about the mindset and mental development of terrorist times, to use some of your posts to explain, how those people think.

I'm guessing you write in German and have someone else translate it to English, am I correct? Otherwise it'll be a tough read..... ("potention" isn't a word btw)

See, always to use Mohammed Atta or Anders Breivik becomes old fast, but to have someone who so textbook always claims, everyone who doesn't have the same opinions as you do is "substandard" and goes so verbally aggressive as you do when challenged in his ideological believes and still hasn't killed anybody yet (I so hope, I am right in that, and please refrain from strangling anybody who doesn't bow to your "superior" view on things before I finished my next year books), well, such a specimen could be fun to dissect with more space than a forum post.

Yeah, definitely a translator.....

[jwocky]

The last refuge of the liberla out of arguments. He who speaks barely one language tries to pick on people who speak two or three languages to uphold his delusions of grandeur. Now, that's a classic!

[Lydiot]

You don't know how many languages I speak you idiot. Could you be more presumptuous? I doubt it.

Now again, back on topic:

So go back and continue your example of how to catch these criminals: We've established a profile, the police has knocked on the door and asked questions, and the suspect says nothing - now what?

[jwocky]

It was an intelligence test and as usual, you lost ...

What do you think, happens if members of a cell get visits from the police? What happens inside the cell. What happens, if for example police presence in the area they want to use to hide and spin their plots, peaks, then goes low again, peaks again? What happens, if maybe, in bigger cells, more than one member gets such visits ...

See, you have obviously not the faintest idea how those things work. You are barely able to spout the buzzlines your ideological handlers gave you and you are incapable to learn things on your own or do a bit thinking on your own and I have honestly too much work and too little time to boil things down into maximal ten word sentences with no word longer than three syllables for you. Aside of that, since we all here know, you don't even want to learn, it would be a waste of time in the first place.

[Lydiot]

Lol.... That wasn't directed at all....

[jwocky]

The answer is there, ight in the post ... only as usual, you don't see it nor would you understand it. So, as usual, only your arrogance makes you thinking, you can even speak reasonably about such subjects, but on a more objective level, you are a waste of time. And thus, I bow out, I lack the time to teach you even the most essential basics against your resistance.

[Lydiot]

The German police tried to question Anis Amri. Then what happened?

Is that what you were talking about?



Or the questioning and detention of Zacarias Moussaoui?

Or Salah Abdeslam?



Etc.....

[jwocky]

No, Lydiot ... I speak about applying pressure on identifiable cell structures, I speak about for example the failure that happened when they spoke to Anis Amri but then failed to follow up. I speak about better narrowing down procedures on public available data to identify potential dangers. But how can I explain things to you if you are only interesting in drooling and trying to paint everybody who tries to stop your beloved terrorists as the bad guy.

If you could be bothered to learn something, you could see EXACTLY what the problem here is. Mousaoui was questioned several times, he refused of course answers, but there was no follow up on his surroundings. People are not islands. The perpetual failure in FBI tactics is alas, that they try to break all suspects single, not the structure, the background. In Moussaoui's case, you have to add, that the charges that were later filed were based on Moussaoui's own claims and the FBI, also alas like usual, forgot to verify those claims sufficiently.

See, what everybody currently does is mostly cleaning up after something happened because the investigative methods currently used can be mostly only applied AFTER an attack took place. Then, you have forensic evidence of all kinds. Before, when the crime is just in its plannig stages, you have no concreta anchor points, only a list of people who may or may not plan something. Now, those people won't talk to you for several reasons. Consider the possibility, they are not terrorists for a moment, they just hate the police and the country they live in. While that is not nice, that alone is no crime. So, you can only do an acid test: Apply presusre and apply pressure also via his environment and watch the dynamic. See, if there is a guy who gets all the time police visits till he talks, maybe not only at home, but at work, in school, maybe in front of his mosque, the people around him start to think. There are different kinds of people. Those who are in (they will avoid quickly any visible contact and then pop up on indirect communication, often via Facebook), those who are not in, but sympathize (many of them will also pop up on social media connections), and those who are not in and don't want to be in (those will just avoid contact and pop up usually nowhere). So, in the end, you get probably enough data to analyze if he is a single planner or part of a cell. If he is a single planner, he will make mistakes because he knows he is under surveillance. If he was part of a cell, he will get isolated, but not before you have enough data to analyze the whole cell structure. And since you need to look only on likelies, you can focus your effort, save resources, which means, when red flags pop up that he changed from planning status to preparation status, you can afford closer surveillance on this person and those who changed status with him. Can't take long till he tries to get weapons or explosives at this point and then you can get him.
The problem is, whenever you try to stop and frisk someone with a gun in blue lalaland, people like you start to drool. The problem is, if you visit the same suspect two times or God beware, three times, people like you start to drool. The problem is, if you out a guy who spreads all the time hate and fanaticism for example on Facebook, people like you start to drool. Because for people like you, everybody who tries to save the lives of innocents is the bad guy. You can't be bothered to learn anything about group dynamics ... because that would contradict your ideology. You can't be bothered to learn something about investigative measures ... that would contradict your ideology. You can't be bothered to learn something about profiling ... that would be against your ideological buzzlines. So, with your actions, you try to prevent all more effective measures while you, at the same time, blame "your enemies" for failures caused by ineffective measures. Which makes you and the likes of you the most valuable asset organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS have.

[Lydiot]

No, Lydiot ... I speak about applying pressure on identifiable cell structures, I speak about for example the failure that happened when they spoke to Anis Amri but then failed to follow up. I speak about better narrowing down procedures on public available data to identify potential dangers.

I understand that perfectly well. You want to use profiles based on data to then take action.

I then asked you just what type of action to engage in, and you mentioned asking someone why they brought a pressure cooker or three, paraphrased. And I merely pointed out to you that that's not sufficient. So we apparently agree that it's not sufficient, because now you're saying that "the failure that happened when they spoke to Anis Amri" was that they "failed to follow up".

So, again: When you've spoken or interrogated one or several members of a criminal organization - while you at the same time aren't being able to prove in court that they're criminals yet - what further actions do you recommend taking?

I want you to tell us just what law enforcement is supposed to do once they've compiled the data, created the profile, questioned the individual(s), and not found enough evidence to press criminal charges:

What do you recommend law enforcement does then?

your beloved terrorists

Like I said or strongly implied before, nobody here likes terrorists, and we all want to see them stopped. The very fact that you stoop to that level above, and say that I love terrorists, just shows everyone what a piece of shit you really are deep down inside. As much as I dislike you, and by now I really, really do, I would NEVER say that you loved terrorists, or that you on purpose and knowingly supported them. Calling you an asshole is just me stating an opinion about you. You implying that I support terrorists is basically accusing me of being a criminal in my jurisdiction, and that is - contrary to the odd invective - an actual case for libel claims.

You need to calm the fuck down buddy.

So, you can only do an acid test: Apply presusre and apply pressure also via his environment and watch the dynamic. See, if there is a guy who gets all the time police visits till he talks, maybe not only at home, but at work, in school, maybe in front of his mosque, the people around him start to think. There are different kinds of people. Those who are in (they will avoid quickly any visible contact and then pop up on indirect communication, often via Facebook), those who are not in, but sympathize (many of them will also pop up on social media connections), and those who are not in and don't want to be in (those will just avoid contact and pop up usually nowhere). So, in the end, you get probably enough data to analyze if he is a single planner or part of a cell. If he is a single planner, he will make mistakes because he knows he is under surveillance. If he was part of a cell, he will get isolated, but not before you have enough data to analyze the whole cell structure. And since you need to look only on likelies, you can focus your effort, save resources, which means, when red flags pop up that he changed from planning status to preparation status, you can afford closer surveillance on this person and those who changed status with him. Can't take long till he tries to get weapons or explosives at this point and then you can get him.
The problem is, whenever you try to stop and frisk someone with a gun in blue lalaland, people like you start to drool. The problem is, if you visit the same suspect two times or God beware, three times, people like you start to drool. The problem is, if you out a guy who spreads all the time hate and fanaticism for example on Facebook, people like you start to drool. Because for people like you, everybody who tries to save the lives of innocents is the bad guy. You can't be bothered to learn anything about group dynamics ... because that would contradict your ideology. You can't be bothered to learn something about investigative measures ... that would contradict your ideology. You can't be bothered to learn something about profiling ... that would be against your ideological buzzlines. So, with your actions, you try to prevent all more effective measures while you, at the same time, blame "your enemies" for failures caused by ineffective measures. Which makes you and the likes of you the most valuable asset organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS have.

It's a well known fact that there are civil liberties that are based on legislation and the constitution. You can have whatever opinion you want about the constitution, but certain things simply aren't legal. Whether or not we want them to be is a completely different issue. Stop-and-frisk simply isn't legal in the US. Before we get to the point of whether or not it should or could be that has to be acknowledged.

And once you get to the point that it should be legal, which seems to be your assertion, you have to juxtapose the benefits of it versus the drawbacks of it. So, on the one hand you have the "ideological buzzlines" found in the US constitution, and on the other you have authorities exercising power in the name of protecting the public. It's a tough choice to make between the two, but it really boils down to the question of what we are defending. Libertarians will by and large be in favor of less government and less government intrusion in private lives, and for a good reason: One of the greatest things of America is the freedom enshrined in the constitution. Both logically and philosophically it is entirely impossible to defend something by making it disappear. You can't defend freedom by taking it away. You can change society into something else by taking such freedoms away, and perhaps that's a better society, but then that has to be argued on its own merits. In other words: Libertarians to a large degree absolutely agree that the way to protect civil liberties is not to erode civil liberties. It's not a left/right issue, it's an issue of just recognizing that problem.

So again: You advocate putting pressure on individuals and groups, and to base the targeting of such pressure on profiles created by going through gathered data, and in principle that is logical and good. on the other side of that however stands civil liberties and freedoms afforded to those that are innocent, those that haven't been proven guilty of a crime yet but are criminals, and even criminals that have been convicted. Different categories have different degrees thereof, but you can't escape the fact that the rights exist. And so I'm asking you about the specifics of this "pressure" that should be applied.

Where is the line drawn between harassment of a person not yet guilty of a crime and possibly innocent and "pressure" of a likely terrorist?

If your intelligence and language skills is any indication it's not very comforting thinking that someone like you would be the person determining just when civil liberties go out the window. You think Hillary Clinton is part of a secret cabal and is responsible for murders, so I think there's a merit to reining in power to "pressure" people based on things other than clear-cut evidence that holds up in court, using reasonable laws compliant with the constitution of the US (other countries are clearly different issues).