Greenwald writes: "The massacre at an Orlando LGBT club has predictably
provoked the same reaction as past terror attacks: recriminations that
authorities should have done more to stop it in advance, accompanied by
demands for new police powers to prevent future ones."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
The FBI Was Right Not to Arrest Omar Mateen Before the Shooting
By Glenn Greenwald, The Washington Post
18 June 16
The massacre at an Orlando LGBT club has predictably provoked the same
reaction as past terror attacks: recriminations that authorities should have
done more to stop it in advance, accompanied by demands for new police
powers to prevent future ones. Blame-assigners immediately pointed to the
FBI's investigation of the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen. "The FBI closed
this file because the Obama administration treats radical Islamic threats as
common crimes," GOP Sen. Lindsey O. Graham argued on Fox News. "If we kept
the file open and we saw what he was up to, I think we could have stopped
it." Others cited core fundamental rights, demanding they be eroded. "Due
process is what's killing us right now," proclaimed Democratic Sen. Joe
Manchin about the FBI's inability to act more aggressively against Mateen.
Ever since the Sept. 11 attack almost 15 years ago, every act of perceived
terror, and even thwarted ones, have triggered identical responses. The
Boston Marathon attack, for instance, prompted this critique of the bureau,
which had looked into the older brother: "Many people thought the FBI should
have continued to investigate [Tamerlan] Tsarnaev until the Boston plot was
uncovered," David Gomez recalled this week in Foreign Policy. About Orlando,
he wrote: "As more terrorists become successful in hiding from the FBI in
plain sight using encryption and other means, perhaps it is time to revisit
the probable-cause standard to open investigations in potential terrorism
cases."
Underlying this mind-set is an assumption that is both dubious and
dangerous: that absolute security is desirable and attainable. None say that
explicitly, but it's the necessary implication of the argument. Once this
framework is implicitly adopted, a successful attack becomes proof that
something went wrong, law enforcement failed to act properly and more
government authorities are needed. To wit: Hillary Clinton this week
proposed an "intelligence surge" to halt "plots before they can be carried
out." And Donald Trump called for more intelligence activity to give "law
enforcement and the military the tools they need to prevent terrorist
attacks."
This is wrong, and based on what we know, the FBI acted properly. Agents
have the power they need, and they were right to close the case on Mateen.
Just because someone successfully carried out a violent mass attack does not
prove that police powers were inadequate or that existing powers were
misapplied. No minimally free society can prevent all violence. In the
United States, we do not hold suspects for crimes they have not committed.
It is possible, indeed probable, that violent attacks will occur even with
superb law enforcement. This is the tradeoff we make for liberty.
The complaint that the FBI, once it had Mateen under suspicion, should have
acted more aggressively to stop him illustrates a kind of pathology. By all
accounts, Mateen had committed no crime (though his ex-wife later said he
had battered her). At the time the FBI decided to close its file on him, he
had not joined any terrorist organization, nor attended a terror training
camp, nor communicated with terror operatives about any plots. Although he
boasted to office colleagues about ties to al Qaeda and Hezbollah, agents
found those claims dubious. There is not, as far as we know, even evidence
that he had expressed support for violence.
When the FBI has reason to suspect someone of extremist activity, they open
an investigative file and gather whatever information they can. But once
they conclude that there is no evidence of criminality, they close the file.
That's how it should be: none of us should want permanent inquiries into
citizens without evidence of lawbreaking, and we should certainly not want
punishments meted out based on unproven suspicions. The FBI followed these
principles in closing its file on Mateen, and it deserves praise for that,
not armchair criticism. "As I would hope the American people would want, we
don't keep people under investigation indefinitely," FBI Director James
Comey said. If agents "don't see predication for continuing it, then we
close it."
What plausible theory exists for empowering the government to restrict the
actions, rights or liberty of a citizen who has broken no laws? For obvious
reasons, the temptation to vest more power in law enforcement agencies is
potent after witnessing carnage like what we've seen this week in Orlando.
Our compassion and instinct tells us: isn't it worth any cost to prevent
such a massacre in the future?
But history leaves no doubt about the serious costs, and dangers, from
straying too far on the liberty-security axis. Encouraging law enforcement
agencies to take action against citizens who are not even charged with, let
alone convicted of, breaking the law is inherently abusive, and certain to
lead to its own serious injuries.
Those dangers are vividly seen by examining the long list of American
Muslims who have arrived at an airport expecting to travel, only to be told
that they have been secretly deemed by unidentified officials as too
suspicious to board an airplane, and have no effective recourse to challenge
or even learn the basis for this restriction. That Democrats, who once found
such due-process-free no-fly lists appalling, now seek in the wake of San
Bernardino and Orlando to expand their use to ban gun purchases illustrates
how easily terror attacks induce an abandonment of reasoned analysis.
We collectively understand tradeoffs in many other contexts. Outside of
disease and suicide, the most common cause of death for Americans is fatal
car accidents. Roughly 36,000 people died from car-related deaths in 2015
(gun deaths are a close second). There are numerous measures that could be
taken to reduce car accidents: lowering speed limits, bolstering safety
regulations for automakers, putting stop signs and lights on every corner.
But our reflexive response to reading about an auto fatality is not to
demand implementation of these measures.
That's because we rationally assess that this fatality level - tragic and
horrifying as it is - is the worthwhile cost paid in exchange for the
benefits of efficient auto travel and affordable cars. We understand that
absolute safety on the road is neither attainable nor desirable - and that
we can minimize, but cannot fully avoid, the risk of injury or death if we
want to use automobiles efficiently. We accept that some deaths are
inevitable.
Yet Americans have eschewed that reasoning process in the face of terrorism
and mass attacks. Each attack has been cited as intrinsic proof of policy
failures, of the need for greater powers and more aggressive policing. We
insist on endlessly trading liberties for false security, eagerly doing so
with each new attack.
That mind-set does far more harm than good. In the wake of Sept. 11, it
ushered in the Patriot Act, mass surveillance, torture and two decade-long
wars. It led to the official dilution of Miranda rights for terrorism
suspects after Omar Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit
in 2010 with a bomb in his underwear. And it led Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump to advocate new and aggressive responses to Orlando: from an
escalation of the bombing campaign against various ISIS locales to increased
surveillance activities.
Terror attacks, by design, succeed in terrorizing. If you are a resident of
any western country, it is more likely that you will die from a lightning
strike than from a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim. Writing in The
New Yorker in early this year, the physicist Lawrence Krauss noted that
"even if you include 9/11, the total death toll from terrorism amounts to
less than one per cent of the death toll from gun violence."
Hypothetically, there may one day be a threat severe enough to justify
rebalancing security and liberty. But terrorism, by every metric, comes
nowhere close. It is obviously unfortunate that nobody was able to stop
Mateen, but that does not mean the FBI could or should have.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/17/the-fbi-was-righ
t-not-to-arrest-omar-mateen-before-the-shooting/https://www.washingtonpost.c
om/posteverything/wp/2016/06/17/the-fbi-was-right-not-to-arrest-omar-mateen-
before-the-shooting/
The FBI Was Right Not to Arrest Omar Mateen Before the Shooting
By Glenn Greenwald, The Washington Post
18 June 16
he massacre at an Orlando LGBT club has predictably provoked the same
reaction as past terror attacks: recriminations that authorities should have
done more to stop it in advance, accompanied by demands for new police
powers to prevent future ones. Blame-assigners immediately pointed to the
FBI's investigation of the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen. "The FBI closed
this file because the Obama administration treats radical Islamic threats as
common crimes," GOP Sen. Lindsey O. Graham argued on Fox News. "If we kept
the file open and we saw what he was up to, I think we could have stopped
it." Others cited core fundamental rights, demanding they be eroded. "Due
process is what's killing us right now," proclaimed Democratic Sen. Joe
Manchin about the FBI's inability to act more aggressively against Mateen.
Ever since the Sept. 11 attack almost 15 years ago, every act of perceived
terror, and even thwarted ones, have triggered identical responses. The
Boston Marathon attack, for instance, prompted this critique of the bureau,
which had looked into the older brother: "Many people thought the FBI should
have continued to investigate [Tamerlan] Tsarnaev until the Boston plot was
uncovered," David Gomez recalled this week in Foreign Policy. About Orlando,
he wrote: "As more terrorists become successful in hiding from the FBI in
plain sight using encryption and other means, perhaps it is time to revisit
the probable-cause standard to open investigations in potential terrorism
cases."
Underlying this mind-set is an assumption that is both dubious and
dangerous: that absolute security is desirable and attainable. None say that
explicitly, but it's the necessary implication of the argument. Once this
framework is implicitly adopted, a successful attack becomes proof that
something went wrong, law enforcement failed to act properly and more
government authorities are needed. To wit: Hillary Clinton this week
proposed an "intelligence surge" to halt "plots before they can be carried
out." And Donald Trump called for more intelligence activity to give "law
enforcement and the military the tools they need to prevent terrorist
attacks."
This is wrong, and based on what we know, the FBI acted properly. Agents
have the power they need, and they were right to close the case on Mateen.
Just because someone successfully carried out a violent mass attack does not
prove that police powers were inadequate or that existing powers were
misapplied. No minimally free society can prevent all violence. In the
United States, we do not hold suspects for crimes they have not committed.
It is possible, indeed probable, that violent attacks will occur even with
superb law enforcement. This is the tradeoff we make for liberty.
The complaint that the FBI, once it had Mateen under suspicion, should have
acted more aggressively to stop him illustrates a kind of pathology. By all
accounts, Mateen had committed no crime (though his ex-wife later said he
had battered her). At the time the FBI decided to close its file on him, he
had not joined any terrorist organization, nor attended a terror training
camp, nor communicated with terror operatives about any plots. Although he
boasted to office colleagues about ties to al Qaeda and Hezbollah, agents
found those claims dubious. There is not, as far as we know, even evidence
that he had expressed support for violence.
When the FBI has reason to suspect someone of extremist activity, they open
an investigative file and gather whatever information they can. But once
they conclude that there is no evidence of criminality, they close the file.
That's how it should be: none of us should want permanent inquiries into
citizens without evidence of lawbreaking, and we should certainly not want
punishments meted out based on unproven suspicions. The FBI followed these
principles in closing its file on Mateen, and it deserves praise for that,
not armchair criticism. "As I would hope the American people would want, we
don't keep people under investigation indefinitely," FBI Director James
Comey said. If agents "don't see predication for continuing it, then we
close it."
What plausible theory exists for empowering the government to restrict the
actions, rights or liberty of a citizen who has broken no laws? For obvious
reasons, the temptation to vest more power in law enforcement agencies is
potent after witnessing carnage like what we've seen this week in Orlando.
Our compassion and instinct tells us: isn't it worth any cost to prevent
such a massacre in the future?
But history leaves no doubt about the serious costs, and dangers, from
straying too far on the liberty-security axis. Encouraging law enforcement
agencies to take action against citizens who are not even charged with, let
alone convicted of, breaking the law is inherently abusive, and certain to
lead to its own serious injuries.
Those dangers are vividly seen by examining the long list of American
Muslims who have arrived at an airport expecting to travel, only to be told
that they have been secretly deemed by unidentified officials as too
suspicious to board an airplane, and have no effective recourse to challenge
or even learn the basis for this restriction. That Democrats, who once found
such due-process-free no-fly lists appalling, now seek in the wake of San
Bernardino and Orlando to expand their use to ban gun purchases illustrates
how easily terror attacks induce an abandonment of reasoned analysis.
We collectively understand tradeoffs in many other contexts. Outside of
disease and suicide, the most common cause of death for Americans is fatal
car accidents. Roughly 36,000 people died from car-related deaths in 2015
(gun deaths are a close second). There are numerous measures that could be
taken to reduce car accidents: lowering speed limits, bolstering safety
regulations for automakers, putting stop signs and lights on every corner.
But our reflexive response to reading about an auto fatality is not to
demand implementation of these measures.
That's because we rationally assess that this fatality level - tragic and
horrifying as it is - is the worthwhile cost paid in exchange for the
benefits of efficient auto travel and affordable cars. We understand that
absolute safety on the road is neither attainable nor desirable - and that
we can minimize, but cannot fully avoid, the risk of injury or death if we
want to use automobiles efficiently. We accept that some deaths are
inevitable.
Yet Americans have eschewed that reasoning process in the face of terrorism
and mass attacks. Each attack has been cited as intrinsic proof of policy
failures, of the need for greater powers and more aggressive policing. We
insist on endlessly trading liberties for false security, eagerly doing so
with each new attack.
That mind-set does far more harm than good. In the wake of Sept. 11, it
ushered in the Patriot Act, mass surveillance, torture and two decade-long
wars. It led to the official dilution of Miranda rights for terrorism
suspects after Omar Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit
in 2010 with a bomb in his underwear. And it led Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump to advocate new and aggressive responses to Orlando: from an
escalation of the bombing campaign against various ISIS locales to increased
surveillance activities.
Terror attacks, by design, succeed in terrorizing. If you are a resident of
any western country, it is more likely that you will die from a lightning
strike than from a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim. Writing in The
New Yorker in early this year, the physicist Lawrence Krauss noted that
"even if you include 9/11, the total death toll from terrorism amounts to
less than one per cent of the death toll from gun violence."
Hypothetically, there may one day be a threat severe enough to justify
rebalancing security and liberty. But terrorism, by every metric, comes
nowhere close. It is obviously unfortunate that nobody was able to stop
Mateen, but that does not mean the FBI could or should have.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
