SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Are You Living with a Terrorist? The US Government Can Help You Be Sure
New document "obtained" by The Intercept reveals NCTC developed rating system to pre-identify those who might fall into extremism
Feb 09, 2015
A government document obtained by journalists at The Intercept reveals the National Counterterrorism Center developed a complex set of criteria to help determine if individuals in the U.S. may be more vulnerable than others to the allure of violent extremism and created a "rating system" that would help law enforcement agents rank such prospects.
Posting the complete NCTC document (link/pdf)--which was marked "Unclassified" but also "For Official Use Only" (FOUO)--to their website on Monday, The Intercept reports:
The rating system, part of a 36-page document dated May 2014 and titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts," suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: "Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility," "Talk of Harming Self or Others," and "Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)." The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.
Families are judged on factors such as "Aware[ness] of Each Other's Activities," as well as levels of "Parent-Child Bonding," and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to "presence of ideologues or recruiters" as potential risk factors.
A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of "susceptibility to engage in violent extremism," according to the document. It encourages users of the guide to plot the scores on a graph to determine what "interventions" could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.
Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, told The Intercept he thought the criteria being used by the government to guage whether individuals might fall into extremism was both "subjective and specious."
"The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face," he said.
Furthermore, and despite White House assurances that such programs are not directed towards specific demographic groups over others, Arun Kundnani, a professor at New York University said it's "obvious," given the details of the program, that such a program "would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."
Kundnani also scoffed at the science underlying the document's rating system, saying, "There's no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being."
Asked by The Intercept for an explanation of the document, the National Counterterrorism Center declined to comment.
Though the reporters of Monday's story do not mention the origin of the NCTC document, it has been largely verified that The Intercept has been receiving materials related to the U.S. national security system by a still unidentified "leaker" - someone with access to information who, like NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, has been willing to pass potentially sensitive internal documents to journalists for public disclosure.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A government document obtained by journalists at The Intercept reveals the National Counterterrorism Center developed a complex set of criteria to help determine if individuals in the U.S. may be more vulnerable than others to the allure of violent extremism and created a "rating system" that would help law enforcement agents rank such prospects.
Posting the complete NCTC document (link/pdf)--which was marked "Unclassified" but also "For Official Use Only" (FOUO)--to their website on Monday, The Intercept reports:
The rating system, part of a 36-page document dated May 2014 and titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts," suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: "Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility," "Talk of Harming Self or Others," and "Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)." The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.
Families are judged on factors such as "Aware[ness] of Each Other's Activities," as well as levels of "Parent-Child Bonding," and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to "presence of ideologues or recruiters" as potential risk factors.
A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of "susceptibility to engage in violent extremism," according to the document. It encourages users of the guide to plot the scores on a graph to determine what "interventions" could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.
Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, told The Intercept he thought the criteria being used by the government to guage whether individuals might fall into extremism was both "subjective and specious."
"The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face," he said.
Furthermore, and despite White House assurances that such programs are not directed towards specific demographic groups over others, Arun Kundnani, a professor at New York University said it's "obvious," given the details of the program, that such a program "would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."
Kundnani also scoffed at the science underlying the document's rating system, saying, "There's no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being."
Asked by The Intercept for an explanation of the document, the National Counterterrorism Center declined to comment.
Though the reporters of Monday's story do not mention the origin of the NCTC document, it has been largely verified that The Intercept has been receiving materials related to the U.S. national security system by a still unidentified "leaker" - someone with access to information who, like NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, has been willing to pass potentially sensitive internal documents to journalists for public disclosure.
A government document obtained by journalists at The Intercept reveals the National Counterterrorism Center developed a complex set of criteria to help determine if individuals in the U.S. may be more vulnerable than others to the allure of violent extremism and created a "rating system" that would help law enforcement agents rank such prospects.
Posting the complete NCTC document (link/pdf)--which was marked "Unclassified" but also "For Official Use Only" (FOUO)--to their website on Monday, The Intercept reports:
The rating system, part of a 36-page document dated May 2014 and titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts," suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: "Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility," "Talk of Harming Self or Others," and "Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)." The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.
Families are judged on factors such as "Aware[ness] of Each Other's Activities," as well as levels of "Parent-Child Bonding," and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to "presence of ideologues or recruiters" as potential risk factors.
A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of "susceptibility to engage in violent extremism," according to the document. It encourages users of the guide to plot the scores on a graph to determine what "interventions" could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.
Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, told The Intercept he thought the criteria being used by the government to guage whether individuals might fall into extremism was both "subjective and specious."
"The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face," he said.
Furthermore, and despite White House assurances that such programs are not directed towards specific demographic groups over others, Arun Kundnani, a professor at New York University said it's "obvious," given the details of the program, that such a program "would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."
Kundnani also scoffed at the science underlying the document's rating system, saying, "There's no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being."
Asked by The Intercept for an explanation of the document, the National Counterterrorism Center declined to comment.
Though the reporters of Monday's story do not mention the origin of the NCTC document, it has been largely verified that The Intercept has been receiving materials related to the U.S. national security system by a still unidentified "leaker" - someone with access to information who, like NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, has been willing to pass potentially sensitive internal documents to journalists for public disclosure.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.