Profiling: How the FBI Tracks Eco-Terror Suspects

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
I wonder if these screwball eco-nuts can get thru a NICS check?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019329/site/newsweek/

Nov. 21, 2005 issue - The FBI collected detailed data on political activities and Web postings of suspected members of a tiny environmentalist commune in southern California two years ago as part of a high-profile counterterrorism probe, bureau records show. Facing further new disclosures about the matter, the bureau last week agreed to settle a lawsuit and to pay $100,000 to Josh Connole, a 27-year-old ex-commune member who had been arrested—and later released—on suspicions he was one of the eco-terrorists who had firebombed SUV dealerships in the summer of 2003. But the bureau's rare concession of error, expected to be publicly announced soon, could bring new attention to what civil-liberties groups say is a disturbing trend: the stepped-up monitoring of domestic political activity by FBI counter-terror agents.

Connole, an anti-Iraq-war protester, had been living in a Pomona, Calif., vegan commune when a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) targeted him after arson attacks on four nearby Hummer dealers—acts blamed on the shadowy Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which the bureau considers a domestic terror group. The case was considered serious enough that Director Robert Mueller briefed President Bush. After concluding Connole looked like a lanky, goateed suspect caught on surveillance tape, agents arrested him at gunpoint on Sept. 12, 2003, then raided the commune. After being interrogated and held for four days, he was released. Another suspect with no connection to the commune was later arrested and convicted.

In their wrongful-arrest lawsuit, Connole's lawyers demanded to know why the FBI looked at Connole in the first place. Court documents show agents were initially tipped off by a neighbor to "suspicious" activity at the commune the night of the attacks. (In fact, says Connole, members were simply helping one of the residents move out.) Agents placed the commune under surveillance and developed a political profile of the residents, discovering the owner of the house and his father "have posted statements on websites opposing the use of fossil fuels," one doc reads. Another says the owner had ties to a local chapter of Food Not Bombs, an "anarcho-vegan food distribution group." Among activities flagged in bureau docs: the father of the owner had conducted a "one man' daily protest" outside a Toyota office, was interviewed for an article called "Dude, Where's my Electric Car!?" and posted info on a Web site announcing "Stop Norway Whaling!" Critics say such info has been increasingly collected by agents since the then Attorney General John Ashcroft relaxed FBI guidelines in 2002. "How does advocacy of electric cars become the basis for suspicion?" asks Bill Paparian, Connole's lawyer. Bureau officials say they collect such info only when there might be ties to violence or terrorism. A spokesman declined to comment on Connole's case, saying that because no settlement has been entered into the court record, it remains "a pending legal matter."
 
coylh said:
Is the FBI watching me yet? Where's my $100,000?!?!
Dude, trust me, you would curse the $100k if you got it that way. This guy was not just under surveillance; he was wrongfully arrested at gunpoint. I bet that the legal bills for all this (crim and civil) could be over $100k and his life may have been severely disrupted by this. At the minimum he probalby lost a job and spent six to twelve months of his life dealing with the most miserable and scary problems an adult can face.

And we all know that there are wrongfully-convicted people who have languished in prison for years or decades, and we know that in cases like this the FBI is very aggressive in getting convictions, even if the evidence is wafer-thin. This guy must have had that in his mind: "Oh sh*t, I really didn't do it but I could be spending the most productive part of my life in prison for being a vegan."

No, $100k isn't remotely worth it.
 
And we all know that there are wrongfully-convicted people who have languished in prison for years or decades, and we know that in cases like this the FBI is very aggressive in getting convictions, even if the evidence is wafer-thin. This guy must have had that in his mind: "Oh sh*t, I really didn't do it but I could be spending the most productive part of my life in prison for being a vegan."

No, $100k isn't remotely worth it.

ElTacoGrande, your absolutly right. All th FBI would have to do is lie and he would be another innocent man in prison. Let me tell you the FBI can get away with it alot more easily than the local police can.
 
1) These guys _scare_ me... Not the feebs, but the ELF folks...Those are the folks who think that it's perfectly okay to blow up a lab full of _people_ if it might save a flippin' lab rat. And since I work in one of those labs, and I think our security people would be a bit more effective if they had a crisis plan other than "call for someone with a gun to come," well...

2) Mr. Feeb - Please understand that just because a lot of firearms owners have been politicized since 1934,1968, 1986 and 1994, that doesn't mean that we're not loyal Americans. Point us toward _real_ terrorists, and tell us what the bag limit is, and you can go back to chasing those New Jersey folks...
 
PCGS65 said:
ElTacoGrande, your absolutly right. All th FBI would have to do is lie and he would be another innocent man in prison. Let me tell you the FBI can get away with it alot more easily than the local police can.
Yeah, they could have had their crime lab analyze the surveillance tape and say "our experts are 100% certain it was him" and then they would have to get someone (perhaps a convict!) to testify "yup, he told me he was going to do it" and then they find "gasoline residues" or something else, and then it's "beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
I wonder if these screwball eco-nuts can get thru a NICS check?

Substitute the word, "gun owners" or "christians" or "jews" or whatever group you belong to, for "eco-nuts" just to give yourself a thrill.

Have you ever wondered why some people think it's odd to buy more than one gun in a year's time? Are they crazy for wondering that about us gun owners?

Don't sweat about their (eco nuts) freedoms and come unglued....just be grateful you live in a country where you can go buy an "eco nut deterence device" yourself.

You start picking and choosing who can and can't have guns, and I promise you, you'll find yourself without one...quick. There's a LOT of people who don't want us to have 'em. Even people who own guns will pick and choose "their" favorite gun and forget the rest. At least the Anti-gun people are consistant. They want 'em ALL gone.

Sorry 'bout the rant. But you seemed to be questioning someone else's liberty. Didn't know if you realized what you were saying.
 
Sorry 'bout the rant. But you seemed to be questioning someone else's liberty. Didn't know if you realized what you were saying.

I knew exactly what I was saying, I usually do. I suggest you do some background reading on ALF and ELF and then you decide if you want them to get thru a NICS check. I know I don't - and I don't give a rats ass if I'm questioning someone else's liberty.
 
Why?

The question that always comes to my mind when the issue of false/mistaken/negligent/accidental/whatever arrest/conviction comes up is it seems the agency (whatever agency) is more interested in closing the case than really solving the crime, don't they realize that if they arrest/convict the wrong person, that the right person is still at large?
BTW I've never gotten an answer, even though I've asked it several times.
 
Being part of a group that advocates the overthrow of the Government through force or violence is a disqualifier for firearms ownership, as per Federal law. However, the ability to actually prove that a person is a member of such a group to an acceptable degree of accuracy, and then keep that data current, is probably not feasible for it to appear in NICS data. I could be wrong.

That statute seems like it would be the most useful in prosecuting people who obtained firearms and then misused them towards the ends of such a group, after the fact.
 
svtruth said:
The question that always comes to my mind when the issue of false/mistaken/negligent/accidental/whatever arrest/conviction comes up is it seems the agency (whatever agency) is more interested in closing the case than really solving the crime, don't they realize that if they arrest/convict the wrong person, that the right person is still at large?
BTW I've never gotten an answer, even though I've asked it several times.

I think it has to do with economy of scale, they've got a finite number of arrestors for what appears to be infinite number of arrestees. If they sometimes get the wong combination - who cares, they got someone.
 
seems the agency (whatever agency) is more interested in closing the case than really solving the crime, don't they realize that if they arrest/convict the wrong person, that the right person is still at large?

Job security maybe?
 
"After concluding Connole looked like a lanky, goateed suspect caught on surveillance tape, agents arrested him at gunpoint..."

Hey, guys, how many times have you seen a surveillance tape shown on the TV news when the cops are looking for somebody? I dunno about y'all, but I'd never recognize anybody off one of those tapes.

The ALF and ELF crowd does more terroristic acts per year within the US than Al Qaida in Iraq. (A little hyperbole, there.) But the news doesn't give it much coverage. But, if I was looking for members or sympathizers, I'd keep an eye on those whose lifestyle has some amount of parallel to the little that is known. That is, I really doubt I'd worry about a bunch of Exxon engineers or members of some major law firm if I were a Feebie. Probably unlikely to worry about farmers or ranchers, either.

Art
 
I was watching a news clip on that granny in Texas who shot a burglar. They discovered with great satisfaction that she went to grade school with Lee Harvey Oswald. Coincidence? Hah! They were both gun owners!

What profile do you fall under?
 
...the bureau's rare concession of error, expected to be publicly announced soon, could bring new attention to what civil-liberties groups say is a disturbing trend: the stepped-up monitoring of domestic political activity by FBI counter-terror agents.

Well, yeah, but they caught Patty Hearst, didn't they?
 
Is that 4 days STRAIGHT interrogation? Or just 4 days without habeas corpus interrogation?

Personally I'd be hard pressed after 2 days of interrogation, let alone 4.


I think that the mind-set of this guy must be strong, imagine 4 days of the FBI working on you. Many people confess to crimes they didn't commit well before 4 days. When they tell you they have video evidence, and you will be sent to guantanamo bay if you don't sign a paper immediately - it must scare the bejeezus out of you. Seriously, I think if I was threatened with deportation to a secret prison for terrorists I might confess to something I didn't do. They might be bluffing, but...
 
I know I don't - and I don't give a rats ass if I'm questioning someone else's liberty.

Then don't complain when someone steps on YOURS as a gun-owning American.

Let the Democrats take your guns away from you. Your ownership of guns is just as much a threat to American society as any eco-nut's ownership of guns. If an eco-nut offered you enough money, you'd sell your guns to him. You wouldn't even KNOW if he was an eco-nut or not.

That makes YOU a danger to the United States. Better that you don't have any guns at all. That way you won't be tempted to sell to some eco-nut. If no one had guns...no one would ever get killed by guns.

See how easy it is to change the argument and step on your rights too?

If you want to blame the eco-nut, blame him/her for something they've DONE. Like murder or arson. Don't blame them for their political beliefs. Once we start determining gun ownership based on "who is or isn't popular right now" then we gunowners hit trouble REAL FAST. Just cause we got Republicans in the Senate right now doesn't mean it will be like that forever. Once the Democrats are back in, we'll see.

Hell...in another couple of years....YOU might be the terrorist. You decided to KEEP your guns after the Congress banned them? That's terrorist activity. They ought to give you 40 years.

Far as I'm concerned...if they are an American citizen, and they wanna buy a gun, let 'em. You think they couldn't beat a NICS check just by going to a gunshow? Or maybe you wanna register all gun sales at the gun show too? Huh? You one of those guys?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top