McLaughlin writes: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has quietly
developed a new way to measure its success in the war on terror: counting
the number of terror threats it has 'disrupted' in a year. But good luck
trying to figure out what that number means, how it was derived, or why it
doesn't jibe with any other law enforcement statistic, most notably, the
number of terror suspects actually charged or arrested."
A man is apprehended by the FBI. (photo: Bryan Smith/Zumapress)
FBI Won't Explain Its Bizarre New Way of Measuring Its Success Fighting
Terror
By Jenna McLaughlin, The Intercept
20 February 16
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has quietly developed a new way to
measure its success in the war on terror: counting the number of terror
threats it has "disrupted" in a year.
But good luck trying to figure out what that number means, how it was
derived, or why it doesn't jibe with any other law enforcement statistic,
most notably, the number of terror suspects actually charged or arrested.
Data covering terrorism. (photo: The Intercept)
In the section on "Performance Measures" in the FBI's latest financial
statement, the bureau reports 440 "terror disruptions" in the 12-month
period ending on September 30, 2015. That's compared to 214 in fiscal year
2014. And it's more than three times the 2015 "target" of 125.
In a vacuum, that would appear to suggest that the FBI's terror-fighting
mission - which sucked up $5.3 billion, or 54 percent of the bureau's $9.8
billion budget in 2015 - is exceeding expectations.
But that number - 440 - is much higher than the number of arrests reported
by the FBI. The Washington Post counted about 60 terror-related arrests in
2015; a study by George Washington University found 71 arrests related to
the Islamic State from March 2014 to the end of 2015.
Of those arrests, many were of people trying to travel abroad or trying to
help others do so. Many more involved people planning attacks that were
essentially imaginary, often goaded by FBI informants.
And according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security
obtained by The Intercept in November, there was only one genuinely "foiled
attack" in the United States between January 2014 and September 2015. And
that one, involving would-be shooters in Garland, Texas, targeting a
cartoon-drawing event inspired by the Prophet Muhammad, was stopped by the
local police department.
The FBI didn't respond to emails asking basic questions such as what
qualifies as a disruption, why the number is so much higher than the
bureau's recorded arrests, or how it comes up with its annual "target."
In a January 2015 Performance Report, Justice Department officials explained
that the "targets reflect the number of expected disruptions based on the
estimated threat, yet account for potential fluctuations."
The officials acknowledged that "disruptions can be a challenge to quantify
for future years" because the number of potential plots is "outside of FBI
control." Nevertheless, they wrote: "Based on past data trends, coupled with
current and emerging threat pictures, the FBI expects to achieve its FY 2015
and FY 2016 targets."
A strange way to provide transparency
The "terrorism threat disruptions" metric is a relatively new arbiter of
success for the FBI. In a 2013 Department of Justice document about
strategic goals, fighting terrorism is identified as Strategic Goal 1, and
"number of terrorism disruptions" is Strategic Objective 1.1.
"To provide transparency to its work in the area of counterterrorism, the
Department will disclose a key statistic: the number of terrorism
disruptions," the department announced.
But the definition was vague: "A disruption is defined as interrupting or
inhibiting a threat actor from engaging in criminal or national security
related activity. A disruption is the result of direct actions and may
include but is not limited to the arrest; seizure of assets; or impairing
the operational capabilities of key threat actors."
And the department's idea of transparency was problematic. Because the FBI's
"operational priorities are classified," the document noted, "it is only
possible to report aggregate data that lacks significant detail."
Experts interviewed by The Intercept suggested two possible explanations for
the high number of terror disruptions.
Gold stars
One possibility, they said, is that the number is just a subjective way to
make people at the FBI look good, or to rationalize the cost.
"This is how the whole career system works in the FBI - statistics,
performance," said Coleen Rowley, a former FBI agent and whistleblower.
Individuals use statistics to advance their careers, and the agency, in
turn, uses them to justify its budget, she said. "In the agency, this is the
way to advance."
The fact that the agency establishes a target for terrorism disruptions is
also troubling, said Michael German, a former FBI agent and fellow with the
Brennan Center for Justice. "That the FBI actually sets a performance goal
stating the specific number of terrorist disruptions it wants to accomplish
over the year would seem to create an incentive to gin up cases where no
real threat might exist."
And if the number is inflated, it wouldn't be the first time the Department
of Justice or the FBI had been criticized for inaccurately estimating the
impact of their counterterrorism efforts.
In 2007, an inspector general investigation found that the entire Department
of Justice - the FBI included - had messed up its bookkeeping efforts on
terrorism. The FBI mistakenly included marriage fraud, immigration cases,
and others in their records of anti-terror cases.
And in 2013, Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz called out the office
that oversees U.S. attorney's offices for shoddy reporting that
significantly overstated the number of terrorism convictions, counting cases
that actually dealt with narcotics or money laundering or including
defendants who had their charges dismissed.
"These inaccuracies are important in part because DOJ management and
Congress need accurate terrorism-related statistics to make informed
operational and budgetary decisions," Horowitz said in a statement
accompanying the 2013 report.
Easier to disrupt than arrest
Another possible explanation for such a big number, however, is that it
accurately reflects a new FBI approach to fighting terror that is occurring
outside of public view - where the bureau decides someone is a threat and
disrupts his or her life in some way that isn't nearly as subject to
oversight and accountability as an indictment or an arrest.
"I'm sensing a significant change in counterterrorism policy in the U.S.,
where we've gone from 'watch and report,' to 'let's just disrupt them any
way we can,'" David Gomez, a former FBI agent and profiler, as well as a
former LAPD officer, told The Intercept. "This has cut short the way the FBI
does long-term investigations. . They're not doing that anymore."
The FBI has indeed been going through some changes.
As a 2013 Congressional Research Service report explains, "Since the
September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, the FBI has implemented a series of
reforms intended to transform itself from a largely reactive law enforcement
agency focused on investigations of criminal activity into a more proactive,
agile, flexible, and intelligence-driven agency that can prevent acts of
terrorism."
This has led law enforcement agencies to use aggressive, proactive
techniques to catch potential terrorists before a crime is committed.
According to the CRS report, one technique is the "Al Capone" approach -
putting people in jail for a minor crime rather than sticking around and
waiting for evidence of a serious violent threat.
Another method is the informant, or "agent provocateur," who starts
communicating with potential suspects, goading them into committing an act
of terrorism in order to catch them in the act.
"Where the person targeted really is a terrorist, that might make sense,"
said German. "But often when evidence that a person is a terrorist is
lacking - that's because he isn't a terrorist."
German, in an email, asked: "Has the FBI secretly prevented people from
getting jobs, hazmat licenses, gun permits, security clearances, or barred
their travel where no charges were brought, providing no opportunity for
them to challenge the accusations against them or prove their innocence? And
then chalked that up as a successful 'disruption' so they would get a pat on
the back and more resources from Congress, regardless of whether the person
was actually guilty?"
A 2009 FBI document obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union
explicitly allows field offices to engage in "disruption strategies" at the
conclusion of a terror assessment or investigation, after "all significant
intelligence has been collected, and/or the threat is otherwise resolved."
Disruption strategy involves "a range of tools including arrests,
interviews, or source-directed operations to effectively disrupt subject's
activities."
"The FBI's overbroad and aggressive use of its investigative and
surveillance powers, and its willingness to employ 'disruption strategies'
against subjects not charged with crimes can have serious, adverse impacts
on innocent Americans," the ACLU concluded.
"Being placed under investigation creates an intense psychological, and
often financial, burden on the people under the microscope and their
families, even when they are never charged with a crime," it continued. "All
the more so when a heinous crime like terrorism is alleged, and when the
investigators are convinced the subject of their investigation is guilty but
they just don't have the evidence necessary for arrest."
The Congressional Research Service report noted that such methods are
reminiscent of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, and particularly the
COINTELPRO program, which engaged in "preventive, covert, intelligence-based
efforts to target and contain people, groups, or movements suspected by the
Bureau to be 'rabble rousers,' 'agitators,' 'key activists,' or 'key black
extremists.'" The FBI "relied on illegal means to curb constitutionally
protected activity it deemed threatening to national security."
The goal of "disruption" has typically been reserved for FBI agents pursuing
people like drug traffickers - where "impeding the normal and effective
operation of the targeted organization, as indicated by changes in the
organizational leadership and/or changes in methods of operation," counts as
disruption.
But that standard doesn't really apply to the "lone wolves" or small groups
that make up most of the FBI's terror suspects.
Great expectations
The FBI is under a lot of pressure these days - charged with preventing
every possible terrorist attack before it happens, while withstanding public
scrutiny of its methods.
Gomez, the former FBI agent, cuts the bureau some slack. "As a policeman, we
used to have a saying about local drug dealers - we put them in jail for
everything, use of heroin, a misdemeanor," Gomez said. "They're doing life
in prison 60 days at a time."
The FBI is "going to be under severe criticism" one way or the other, he
said. "You can't win."
Rowley, though critical of the strategy, said she was also sympathetic.
"It's a bad position of, oh, you better prevent every act of terrorism," she
said.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
A man is apprehended by the FBI. (photo: Bryan Smith/Zumapress)
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/fbi-wont-explain-its-bizarre-new-way-of-
measuring-its-success-fighting-terror/https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/fb
i-wont-explain-its-bizarre-new-way-of-measuring-its-success-fighting-terror/
FBI Won't Explain Its Bizarre New Way of Measuring Its Success Fighting
Terror
By Jenna McLaughlin, The Intercept
20 February 16
he Federal Bureau of Investigation has quietly developed a new way to
measure its success in the war on terror: counting the number of terror
threats it has "disrupted" in a year.
But good luck trying to figure out what that number means, how it was
derived, or why it doesn't jibe with any other law enforcement statistic,
most notably, the number of terror suspects actually charged or arrested.
Data covering terrorism. (photo: The Intercept)
In the section on "Performance Measures" in the FBI's latest financial
statement, the bureau reports 440 "terror disruptions" in the 12-month
period ending on September 30, 2015. That's compared to 214 in fiscal year
2014. And it's more than three times the 2015 "target" of 125.
In a vacuum, that would appear to suggest that the FBI's terror-fighting
mission - which sucked up $5.3 billion, or 54 percent of the bureau's $9.8
billion budget in 2015 - is exceeding expectations.
But that number - 440 - is much higher than the number of arrests reported
by the FBI. The Washington Post counted about 60 terror-related arrests in
2015; a study by George Washington University found 71 arrests related to
the Islamic State from March 2014 to the end of 2015.
Of those arrests, many were of people trying to travel abroad or trying to
help others do so. Many more involved people planning attacks that were
essentially imaginary, often goaded by FBI informants.
And according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security
obtained by The Intercept in November, there was only one genuinely "foiled
attack" in the United States between January 2014 and September 2015. And
that one, involving would-be shooters in Garland, Texas, targeting a
cartoon-drawing event inspired by the Prophet Muhammad, was stopped by the
local police department.
The FBI didn't respond to emails asking basic questions such as what
qualifies as a disruption, why the number is so much higher than the
bureau's recorded arrests, or how it comes up with its annual "target."
In a January 2015 Performance Report, Justice Department officials explained
that the "targets reflect the number of expected disruptions based on the
estimated threat, yet account for potential fluctuations."
The officials acknowledged that "disruptions can be a challenge to quantify
for future years" because the number of potential plots is "outside of FBI
control." Nevertheless, they wrote: "Based on past data trends, coupled with
current and emerging threat pictures, the FBI expects to achieve its FY 2015
and FY 2016 targets."
A strange way to provide transparency
The "terrorism threat disruptions" metric is a relatively new arbiter of
success for the FBI. In a 2013 Department of Justice document about
strategic goals, fighting terrorism is identified as Strategic Goal 1, and
"number of terrorism disruptions" is Strategic Objective 1.1.
"To provide transparency to its work in the area of counterterrorism, the
Department will disclose a key statistic: the number of terrorism
disruptions," the department announced.
But the definition was vague: "A disruption is defined as interrupting or
inhibiting a threat actor from engaging in criminal or national security
related activity. A disruption is the result of direct actions and may
include but is not limited to the arrest; seizure of assets; or impairing
the operational capabilities of key threat actors."
And the department's idea of transparency was problematic. Because the FBI's
"operational priorities are classified," the document noted, "it is only
possible to report aggregate data that lacks significant detail."
Experts interviewed by The Intercept suggested two possible explanations for
the high number of terror disruptions.
Gold stars
One possibility, they said, is that the number is just a subjective way to
make people at the FBI look good, or to rationalize the cost.
"This is how the whole career system works in the FBI - statistics,
performance," said Coleen Rowley, a former FBI agent and whistleblower.
Individuals use statistics to advance their careers, and the agency, in
turn, uses them to justify its budget, she said. "In the agency, this is the
way to advance."
The fact that the agency establishes a target for terrorism disruptions is
also troubling, said Michael German, a former FBI agent and fellow with the
Brennan Center for Justice. "That the FBI actually sets a performance goal
stating the specific number of terrorist disruptions it wants to accomplish
over the year would seem to create an incentive to gin up cases where no
real threat might exist."
And if the number is inflated, it wouldn't be the first time the Department
of Justice or the FBI had been criticized for inaccurately estimating the
impact of their counterterrorism efforts.
In 2007, an inspector general investigation found that the entire Department
of Justice - the FBI included - had messed up its bookkeeping efforts on
terrorism. The FBI mistakenly included marriage fraud, immigration cases,
and others in their records of anti-terror cases.
And in 2013, Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz called out the office
that oversees U.S. attorney's offices for shoddy reporting that
significantly overstated the number of terrorism convictions, counting cases
that actually dealt with narcotics or money laundering or including
defendants who had their charges dismissed.
"These inaccuracies are important in part because DOJ management and
Congress need accurate terrorism-related statistics to make informed
operational and budgetary decisions," Horowitz said in a statement
accompanying the 2013 report.
Easier to disrupt than arrest
Another possible explanation for such a big number, however, is that it
accurately reflects a new FBI approach to fighting terror that is occurring
outside of public view - where the bureau decides someone is a threat and
disrupts his or her life in some way that isn't nearly as subject to
oversight and accountability as an indictment or an arrest.
"I'm sensing a significant change in counterterrorism policy in the U.S.,
where we've gone from 'watch and report,' to 'let's just disrupt them any
way we can,'" David Gomez, a former FBI agent and profiler, as well as a
former LAPD officer, told The Intercept. "This has cut short the way the FBI
does long-term investigations. . They're not doing that anymore."
The FBI has indeed been going through some changes.
As a 2013 Congressional Research Service report explains, "Since the
September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, the FBI has implemented a series of
reforms intended to transform itself from a largely reactive law enforcement
agency focused on investigations of criminal activity into a more proactive,
agile, flexible, and intelligence-driven agency that can prevent acts of
terrorism."
This has led law enforcement agencies to use aggressive, proactive
techniques to catch potential terrorists before a crime is committed.
According to the CRS report, one technique is the "Al Capone" approach -
putting people in jail for a minor crime rather than sticking around and
waiting for evidence of a serious violent threat.
Another method is the informant, or "agent provocateur," who starts
communicating with potential suspects, goading them into committing an act
of terrorism in order to catch them in the act.
"Where the person targeted really is a terrorist, that might make sense,"
said German. "But often when evidence that a person is a terrorist is
lacking - that's because he isn't a terrorist."
German, in an email, asked: "Has the FBI secretly prevented people from
getting jobs, hazmat licenses, gun permits, security clearances, or barred
their travel where no charges were brought, providing no opportunity for
them to challenge the accusations against them or prove their innocence? And
then chalked that up as a successful 'disruption' so they would get a pat on
the back and more resources from Congress, regardless of whether the person
was actually guilty?"
A 2009 FBI document obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union
explicitly allows field offices to engage in "disruption strategies" at the
conclusion of a terror assessment or investigation, after "all significant
intelligence has been collected, and/or the threat is otherwise resolved."
Disruption strategy involves "a range of tools including arrests,
interviews, or source-directed operations to effectively disrupt subject's
activities."
"The FBI's overbroad and aggressive use of its investigative and
surveillance powers, and its willingness to employ 'disruption strategies'
against subjects not charged with crimes can have serious, adverse impacts
on innocent Americans," the ACLU concluded.
"Being placed under investigation creates an intense psychological, and
often financial, burden on the people under the microscope and their
families, even when they are never charged with a crime," it continued. "All
the more so when a heinous crime like terrorism is alleged, and when the
investigators are convinced the subject of their investigation is guilty but
they just don't have the evidence necessary for arrest."
The Congressional Research Service report noted that such methods are
reminiscent of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, and particularly the
COINTELPRO program, which engaged in "preventive, covert, intelligence-based
efforts to target and contain people, groups, or movements suspected by the
Bureau to be 'rabble rousers,' 'agitators,' 'key activists,' or 'key black
extremists.'" The FBI "relied on illegal means to curb constitutionally
protected activity it deemed threatening to national security."
The goal of "disruption" has typically been reserved for FBI agents pursuing
people like drug traffickers - where "impeding the normal and effective
operation of the targeted organization, as indicated by changes in the
organizational leadership and/or changes in methods of operation," counts as
disruption.
But that standard doesn't really apply to the "lone wolves" or small groups
that make up most of the FBI's terror suspects.
Great expectations
The FBI is under a lot of pressure these days - charged with preventing
every possible terrorist attack before it happens, while withstanding public
scrutiny of its methods.
Gomez, the former FBI agent, cuts the bureau some slack. "As a policeman, we
used to have a saying about local drug dealers - we put them in jail for
everything, use of heroin, a misdemeanor," Gomez said. "They're doing life
in prison 60 days at a time."
The FBI is "going to be under severe criticism" one way or the other, he
said. "You can't win."
Rowley, though critical of the strategy, said she was also sympathetic.
"It's a bad position of, oh, you better prevent every act of terrorism," she
said.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
