At least 300 IS Sympathisers Operating Now In The US

[cronus]

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/grou ... rt-america

Groundbreaking Report Tracks ISIS Support in America

There are 300 Islamic State sympathizers based in the United States who are active on social media, according to a new report by the Program on Extremism, at George Washington University.

The groundbreaking report, by Lorenzo Vidino and Seamus Hughes, identifies 250 Americans who have attempted to join the Islamic State and 900 open FBI investigations relating to ISIS.

It analyzes the Islamic State’s presence in the United States, monitoring both online and offline activity and details case studies of individuals who have joined the Islamic State.

It’s broken down into two parts. The first exhaustively pulls together available information on all U.S. citizens who have been arrested for Islamic-State-related activity. The second examines motivations, including the role of social media.

"While jihadist causes have lured American recruits for several decades, the surge spurred by the rise of ISIS and its sophisticated marketing of its counter-culture to impressionable Americans is unprecedented" the report concludes.

(continued, internment? or wait and see?)

[JimC]

If they have clearly indicated on social media that they support IS, I have no difficulty with shoving them in jail...

Fuck 'em!

[cronus]

If they have clearly indicated on social media that they support IS, I have no difficulty with shoving them in jail...

Fuck 'em!

I reckon it'll take at least one further atrocity before the US wakes up to the enemy within. Only question is will it be the big one or another shoot-out?

[JimC]

If they have clearly indicated on social media that they support IS, I have no difficulty with shoving them in jail...

Fuck 'em!

I reckon it'll take at least one further atrocity before the US wakes up to the enemy within. Only question is will it be the big one or another shoot-out?

As long as they realise that the enemy is not all muslims, but a specific minority...

[Jason]

I think a little more detective work is required than a post on facebook calling for death to america before we can try and sentence people for aiding and abetting terrorism..

[Collector1337]

[JimC]

I think a little more detective work is required than a post on facebook calling for death to america before we can try and sentence people for aiding and abetting terrorism..

Well, the female half of the terrorist duo pledged allegiance to ISIS on line, then shot lots of people. To me, that is significant enough to warrant the arrest of anyone who does the same, civil liberties be damned in this case. It has the potential to save innocent lives in the future.

But again, this is very narrow targeting, not an attack on muslims in general

[Jason]

When they say 'pledged allegiance' what they found was one post of facebook that they say was pro-ISIS. Until I see what she actually wrote I find it to be a specious allegation. Many of us have written things even here on Rationalia that law enforcement agents may take to be 'pledges of allegiance' to terrorist organizations with that standard of evidence.

[cronus]

It's better to ere on the side of caution. If they are in communication with IS, or seeking information....then they are likely to be dangerous, too dangerous to be at large. It doesn't take rocket science to divide the wheat from the chaff regarding serious and throwaway remarks made on the web.

[Jason]

It's better to ere on the side of caution. If they are in communication with IS, or seeking information....then they are likely to be dangerous, too dangerous to be at large. It doesn't take rocket science to divide the wheat from the chaff regarding serious and throwaway remarks made on the web.

Seeking communication with a terrorist organization for the purpose of..? Is this social excommunication we're looking at here? Anyone guilty of the crime of communication with an organization or individual whom the authority labels a criminal must be punished to the full extent of the law? Under the stern gaze of lady liberty we crucify our liberties in the name of security?

Bullshit to that. I'll communicate with whom I want. If you find evidence of terrorist collusion in my communication, which you have obtained a warrant to investigate (based on sufficient evidence as weighed by a judge), then you may label me 'terrorist' and drag me naked through the streets. Not before. I'll stand up for the rights we've fought and struggled for in western society for centuries in the face of terrorist bullets and bombs. Thanks.

[JimC]

It's better to ere on the side of caution. If they are in communication with IS, or seeking information....then they are likely to be dangerous, too dangerous to be at large. It doesn't take rocket science to divide the wheat from the chaff regarding serious and throwaway remarks made on the web.

This time I agree with you, Scump.

[Jason]

How could you favour such a potential abrogation of liberty? Why should it be a crime to communicate with someone, anyone? Can't you see the gross potential for abuse inherent in a system that excommunicates persons and groups and makes it a crime to violate their dictate?

Really?

[Jason]

I'm curious as to how many degrees of excommunication you would prescribe Scumple. How wide do the no man's zones of excommunication have to be to satisfy the law in this dystopian view of yours? If I talk to a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy.. that knows a guy that is a terrorist am I a terrorist by association? Would one more or one less degree of separation make all the difference?

I'm also curious as to how you would be able to give over your trust so easily to a government of the day to determine behind closed doors what people are excluded from society. Nazism had its excluded and excommunicated groups, I'd would have thought a man of your age and wit would have learned a thing or two from a history book. Or has fear stolen your wits?

[JimC]

How could you favour such a potential abrogation of liberty? Why should it be a crime to communicate with someone, anyone? Can't you see the gross potential for abuse inherent in a system that excommunicates persons and groups and makes it a crime to violate their dictate?

Really?

I'm not talking about those who are dabbling out of curiosity, but those who exhibit full-blown support for jihad, and are, to all intents and purposes, on-line members of ISIS. From every piece of news about various terrorist massacres, those who are responsible show clear signs of radicalisation in retrospect, often evidenced on social media.

At the very least, such people should be paid a visit, and there houses thoroughly searched. If they have illegal weapons they are charged (possibly adding a charge of intending to commit a terrorist act if the evidence points that way), and if they have legally purchased weapons they get confiscated. After that, if they are not actually arrested, they should definitely be put under effective surveillance. So, a gradated response, depending on the extent of their involvement, but if the lives of future innocents can be saved by running a little rough-shod over the rights of those who openly applaud terrorism, then so be it...

[JimC]

I'm curious as to how many degrees of excommunication you would prescribe Scumple. How wide do the no man's zones of excommunication have to be to satisfy the law in this dystopian view of yours? If I talk to a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy.. that knows a guy that is a terrorist am I a terrorist by association? Would one more or one less degree of separation make all the difference?

I'm also curious as to how you would be able to give over your trust so easily to a government of the day to determine behind closed doors what people are excluded from society. Nazism had its excluded and excommunicated groups, I'd would have thought a man of your age and wit would have learned a thing or two from a history book. Or has fear stolen your wits?

Two points - for me, it's not the vague, second or third hand connections that are the trigger, but clear, straightforward lines of evidence such as pledging your allegiance to ISIS on line.

Your point about the difficulty of trusting government agencies to stick to such clear-cut cases is a valid one. I believe it can be met by having a rigorous system of legal oversight; no system is perfect, but neither do we have to be suicidal as a society, and passively let terrorists plan their moves and gather on-line support.