Your very own suspected terrorist

Very good point CJ. I bet he knew the answer to everything he asked. Think
about it. If Michael would have said absolutely anything--ANYTHING-- that
didn't match his records he would have become suspect. Of course the agent
didn't act like he knew anything--he wanted Michael to think he was clueless
about it so that he would be more comfortable in making up a story if he was
a terrorist.

The story actually makes me feel a tad better about our anti-terror efforts.

Marco

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


The agent did not seriously believe that Michael was a terrorist and had
reason to believe that we knew enough about him that he was not a
terrorist.

He may have told Michael that he had not looked at his INS file and may
only
have been pretending to be ignorant of its contents. He might have gotten
more serious if Michael had answered questions contrarily to what the FBI
already knew.

The FBI routinely looks at your checking accounts when they begin an
investigation and would have done this before even contacting Michael.
They
would have checked to see whether endorsements on checks deposited in his
account matched other signatures they had of his, for example. They would
also have looked for anomalous disbursements or deposits. This technique
has
been so successful at uncovering terrorists that the FBI has not really
changed its methods in 40 years. Originally they started checking bank
accounts at random just to see what would turn up. They found one bank
account that had checks bearing five different signatures all with the
same
name. They sent a rookie agent by the name of Jason Moulton out to stake
out
the house and he ended up catching Patty Hearst and several other members
of
the Symbionese Liberation Army. Not bad for a rookie. He told me that when
he went in through the back door that Patty Hearst was sitting at a
kitchen
table, cleaning a disassembled weapon. He was real glad that she was not
armed.





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote
Very good point CJ. I bet he knew the answer to everything he asked.

Yeah, and he was having my apartment watched. And my truck was being
tailed when he called me that morning. Sure. You keep telling
yourself that.

As for me, I call bull****.

Michael

Sounds like terrorist-talk to me.


;-)

Yeah, and he was having my apartment watched. And my truck was being
tailed when he called me that morning. Sure. You keep telling
yourself that.

As for me, I call bull****.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message:
Yeah, and he was having my apartment watched. And my truck was being
tailed when he called me that morning. Sure. You keep telling
yourself that.

As for me, I call bull****.

You can call it anything you want. What you describe would have happened
AFTER you screwed up one of your answers.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote
Yeah, and he was having my apartment watched. And my truck was being
tailed when he called me that morning. Sure. You keep telling
yourself that.

As for me, I call bull****.

You can call it anything you want. What you describe would have happened
AFTER you screwed up one of your answers.

You are completely missing the point. Had I been an actual terrorist,
the meeting at which I answered his questions would never have taken
place. When I saw the card on the door I would have bolted. Unless
my apartment was being watched, I would have made my getaway.

Even if I were a particularly bold terrorist who was dumb enough to
think the card was there for other reasons, once the FBI agent told me
I was under suspicion for terrorism I would have bolted. I would have
made my apppintment for lunchtime, just as I did then, and kept on
driving. When he showed up three hours later, I would have been long
gone.

And therein lies the point. If I were a real terrorist, I would be
long gone unless I was a total moron. What the FBI agent did could
not possibly be of any use in catching a real terrorist who is not a
total moron - all it's good for is hassling regular law-abiding
citizens. Which is all the anti-terrorist measures implemented after
9/11 ever succeed in doing.

Michael

Hi,

Recently, Michael posted:

And therein lies the point. If I were a real terrorist, I would be
long gone unless I was a total moron. What the FBI agent did could
not possibly be of any use in catching a real terrorist who is not a
total moron - all it's good for is hassling regular law-abiding
citizens. Which is all the anti-terrorist measures implemented after
9/11 ever succeed in doing.

Excellent points. I think our biggest weakness is how we think everyone
else in the world is more stupid than we are. There is no policy or
practice that will thwart a determined effort by a half-smart terrorist,
given that even the half-assed and downright crazy ones get over
successfully. I am *so* tired of our governments' extravagant and
pointless efforts to placate the public.

Neil

Michael wrote:

You are completely missing the point. Had I been an actual terrorist,
the meeting at which I answered his questions would never have taken
place. When I saw the card on the door I would have bolted.

In which case, the FBI would have accomplished their objective and have foiled
whatever plot the terrorist had in mind.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Michael,

the reactions to your original post are truly scary.

--
Thomas

Good points. Where would you have run-off to? You can bet that if you did do
that, it would have stepped up the investigation. This accomplishes the same
thing as the questioning itself. Would they have to chase you? Yes. But they
know what you look like, know the car you drive, know your credit card
numbers, etc. As George posted, they would have accomplished part of their
mission to foil your plan and you can be sure they would have started the
process to get your name out in their network.

You're assuming that the agent intended to arrest you on the spot if you
were a terrorist. Believe me, if that was the case, you would have had a
much more exciting tale to tell. Listen, I understand that I may be wrong
and I won't bet my life that I'm right but from conversations with good
friends in that field and others who work for the Dept of Homeland Security,
I personally would not underestimate their procedures. Especially after they
went through a major overhaul of these procedures post 9/11.

Bottom line is that this is a weeding-out process that worked. You had a
minimal "hassle" and they redirected their efforts. I say "minimal" because
I compare your discussion with other countries' versions of "discussions."

Marco

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote
Yeah, and he was having my apartment watched. And my truck was being
tailed when he called me that morning. Sure. You keep telling
yourself that.

As for me, I call bull****.

You can call it anything you want. What you describe would have happened
AFTER you screwed up one of your answers.

You are completely missing the point. Had I been an actual terrorist,
the meeting at which I answered his questions would never have taken
place. When I saw the card on the door I would have bolted. Unless
my apartment was being watched, I would have made my getaway.

Even if I were a particularly bold terrorist who was dumb enough to
think the card was there for other reasons, once the FBI agent told me
I was under suspicion for terrorism I would have bolted. I would have
made my apppintment for lunchtime, just as I did then, and kept on
driving. When he showed up three hours later, I would have been long
gone.

And therein lies the point. If I were a real terrorist, I would be
long gone unless I was a total moron. What the FBI agent did could
not possibly be of any use in catching a real terrorist who is not a
total moron - all it's good for is hassling regular law-abiding
citizens. Which is all the anti-terrorist measures implemented after
9/11 ever succeed in doing.

Michael



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote
Good points. Where would you have run-off to?

Anywhere. After all, I was under an assumed name, right?

You can bet that if you did do
that, it would have stepped up the investigation.

I'm sure it would have. But I would be gone (maybe back to my home
country) while the others left behind carried on the plot.

This accomplishes the same
thing as the questioning itself.

Nope. Unless they catch me, it loses their only lead. I KNOW it's
their only lead, because there is no network, no cell that I am a
member of. But THEY don't know that. As far as they know, I'm their
only lead to a local cell.

Would they have to chase you? Yes. But they
know what you look like

Yeah - a bald dark skinned man with a beard and glasses. How long
does it take to shave and put on a toupee, and buy contacts?

know the car you drive

Which would be traded in a heartbeat.

know your credit card numbers, etc.

Again - if I'm a terrorist, I've stolen an identity. If I'm who I
claim to be, then it's obvious I'm not a terrorist.

Listen, I understand that I may be wrong
and I won't bet my life that I'm right

You are betting your life that you're right. These are the people who
are supposedly defending you from terror.

but from conversations with good
friends in that field and others who work for the Dept of Homeland Security,
I personally would not underestimate their procedures.

I think that would be difficult to do.

Especially after they
went through a major overhaul of these procedures post 9/11.

The changes after 9/11 are all window dressing. Nothing substantive
happened. That's the point. We're no safer now than we were then,
but we're a lot less free.

Bottom line is that this is a weeding-out process that worked.

No, the bottom line is that this is a process that could ONLY work if
I were not a terrorist. If I were, the process was guaranteed to
fail. It's not a process designed to actually improve security, but
to give the illusion of it.

You had a
minimal "hassle" and they redirected their efforts. I say "minimal" because
I compare your discussion with other countries' versions of "discussions."

Do you actually know anything about those other countries? Have you
ever lived in one? Do you remember when everyone was looking for
communists rather than terrorists? I lived in the Soviet Union then.
It really wasn't a lot different from what the US has become. It's
not that the KGB was all-powerful and massive. It wasn't really all
that different from our own FBI and CIA. But what the KGB did have
was an army of unpaid volunteer snitches - something free countries
don't have. We have them now.

Michael