[Winstonm]

"Audit: Anti-Terror Case Data Flawed"

Quote

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

(02-20) 21:55 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --


Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.


Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found."

Comments?

[helene_t]

We have had several discussion about the semantics of the word "terrorist" and I keep saying "semantics, seschmantics".

The important question is: what consequences does it have when a particular case is labelled as "terrorism"?
- More coverage on Al-Djazera?
- Suspects can be send to Guatanamo?
- The official statistics of "terror"activities benefit, justifying more money for the military, more tollerance when the president doesn't respect the constitution etc?

[mike777]

Bureaucrats inflating their statistics, what else is new. Going on for hmmm 5000 years or more. I would not read too much into this one.

[Winstonm]

I believe the issue here is the Justice Department is under the auspices of the executive branch, and this tidbit once again shows the pattern of adapting information to confirm to their reality - a reality they create.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Feb 22 2007, 01:57 AM, said:

The important question is: what consequences does it have when a particular case is labelled as "terrorism"?

Easier (or no) warrants, and the ability to completely whitewash police misconduct by claiming 'national security' and classifying it.

The Jose Padilla trial should be very, very, interesting.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Feb 22 2007, 07:00 AM, said:

Bureaucrats inflating their statistics, what else is new. Going on for hmmm 5000 years or more. I would not read too much into this one.

Nixon-Mitchell et al vs Cheney-Ashcroft et al

Pretty scary. I freely accept that most do as bad or possibly worse but when they are brazen AND blatant....it says a lot about how comfortable they feel with their authority. Checks and balances remember....not cheques and balanced books....

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Feb 22 2007, 01:38 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 22 2007, 01:57 AM, said:

The important question is: what consequences does it have when a particular case is labelled as "terrorism"?

Easier (or no) warrants, and the ability to completely whitewash police misconduct by claiming 'national security' and classifying it.

The Jose Padilla trial should be very, very, interesting.

I'm not sure of this but seems logical that they could also be held as enemy combattants and end up in the Gitmo forever, with no right to habeus corpus - seems a little harsh for a parking ticket violation.