DHS adds photography of iconic buildings to already massive list of terrorism indicators
End the Lie
December 7th, 2012
Reader Views: 405
The sheer number of indicators of potential terrorist activity according to the FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government entities is simply staggering. Now we can add the simple act of photography to the list.
Some of the many include:
Reporting these supposedly suspicious activities has become increasingly easy withÂ smartphone applications like CrimePushÂ andÂ othersÂ along withÂ text messaging systemsÂ andÂ more.
Ironically, in one case a legitimate report of suspicious activity revealed thatÂ the New York Police Department was conducting an illegal surveillance operation outside of their jurisdiction.
When I was tipped off toÂ this latest Roll Call ReleaseÂ byÂ Joe Cadillac, I assumed it was old since as early as 2006 photography wasÂ listedÂ as a suspicious activity in a wide variety of contexts.
Furthermore,Â in 2010Â â€ścamera usage at non-tourist sitesâ€ť and purchasing â€ścamera/surveillance equipmentâ€ť have been listed as indicators of potential terrorist activity.
Over 25 fliers have been produced by the FBI and Department of Justice alone for specific industries, all of which can be seenÂ here.
However, this is indeed a new release for police, fire EMS and security personnel dated Nov. 13, 2012. It has the seals of the DHS and FBI emblazoned on the top, and was apparently produced in collaboration with the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG), part ofÂ the infamous National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
â€śTerrorists and criminals may use photos or videos of potential targets to gain insight into security operations and details of facility operations, including traffic flow through and around facilities, opening times, and access requirements,â€ť states the document, released byÂ Public IntelligenceÂ (one of the most usefulÂ alternative news sources).
â€śPhotographs and video useful in planning an attack may include facility security devices (surveillance cameras, security locks, metal detectors, jersey walls and planters); security personnel; facility entrances and exits; and other features such as lighting, access routes, gates, roads, walkways, and bridges,â€ť the document adds.
While some of that photography would indeed be quite suspicious, the individuals who compiled the document apparently were only capable of compiling incidents which in fact had nothing to do with terrorist activity whatsoever.
â€śAlthough none were ultimately linked to terrorist activity, they are cited as examples for awareness and training purposes,â€ť the document states.
This makes one wonder why on earth they are listing incidents that were in no way linked to terrorist activity as examples of suspicious activity potentially linked to terrorism?
One might point out that this likely will just continue to encourageÂ the production of worthless intelligence by fusion centersÂ and other entities supposedly aimed at fighting terrorism.
By far the most absurd of the indicators of potentially suspicious photography includes, â€śIndividuals encountered with photographs of critical infrastructure, iconic buildings, or other sites not of tourist interest.â€ť
The obvious issue here is, â€śiconic buildings, or other sites not of tourist interest.â€ť Wouldnâ€™t iconic buildings be, by definition, of tourist interest or at least of interest to someone? If not, why would they be iconic?
The most laughable aspect of the document is the clear attempt to preemptively shield the agencies from the obvious criticism, namely, that these recommendations would clearly endanger legitimate activities protected by the First Amendment.
â€śFirst Amendment-protected activities should not be reported in a SAR [Suspicious Activity Reporting] or ISE-SAR [Information Sharing Environment-Suspicious Activity Reporting] absent articulable facts and circumstances that support the source agencyâ€™s suspicion that the behavior observed is not innocent, but rather reasonably indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism, including evidence of pre-operational planning related to terrorism,â€ť states the document.
When the document gives examples which are admittedly completely irrelevant and in no way linked to terrorist activity, how can they honestly believe that recipients of the document would be prepared to present â€śabsent articulable facts and circumstances that support the source agencyâ€™s suspicion that the behavior observed is not innocent, but rather reasonably indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorismâ€ť?
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Madison Ruppert of End the Lie.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The LieÂ and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can findÂ HERE.Â If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him atÂ admin@EndtheLie.com
Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide
Leave A Comment...
The Daily Sheeple Home Page