FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’ | Danger Room

The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.”

At the Bureau’s training ground in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more “devout” a Muslim, the more likely he is to be “violent.” Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: “Any war against non-believers is justified” under Muslim law; a “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.”

These are excerpts from dozens of pages of recent FBI training material on Islam that Danger Room has acquired. In them, the Constitutionally protected religious faith of millions of Americans is portrayed as an indicator of terrorist activity.

“There may not be a ‘radical’ threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology,” one FBI presentation notes. “The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream.”

The FBI isn’t just treading on thin legal ice by portraying ordinary, observant Americans as terrorists-in-waiting, former counterterrorism agents say. It’s also playing into al-Qaida’s hands.

Focusing on the religious behavior of American citizens instead of proven indicators of criminal activity like stockpiling guns or using shady financing makes it more likely that the FBI will miss the real warning signs of terrorism. And depicting Islam as inseparable from political violence is exactly the narrative al-Qaida spins — as is the related idea that America and Islam are necessarily in conflict. That’s why FBI whistleblowers provided Danger Room with these materials.

Over the past few years, American Muslim civil rights groups have raised alarm about increased FBI and police presence in Islamic community centers and mosques, fearing that their lawful behavior is being targeted under the broad brush of counterterrorism. The documents may help explain the heavy scrutiny.

They certainly aren’t the first time the FBI has portrayed Muslims in a negative light during Bureau training sessions. As Danger Room reported in July, the FBI’s Training Division has included anti-Islam books, and materials that claim Islam “transforms [a] country’s culture into 7th-century Arabian ways.” When Danger Room confronted the FBI with that material, an official statement issued to us claimed, “The presentation in question was a rudimentary version used for a limited time that has since been replaced.”

But these documents aren’t relics from an earlier era. One of these briefings, titled “Strategic Themes and Drivers in Islamic Law,” took place on March 21.

The Islam briefings are elective, not mandatory. “A disclaimer accompanied the presentation stating that the views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government,” FBI spokesman Christopher Allen tells Danger Room.

“The training materials in question were delivered as Stage Two training to counterterrorism-designated agents,” Allen adds. “This training was largely derived from a variety of open source publications and includes the opinion of the analyst that developed the lesson block.”

Not all counterterrorism veterans consider the briefings so benign. “Teaching counterterrorism operatives about obscure aspects of Islam,” says Robert McFadden, who recently retired as one of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service’s al-Qaida-hunters, “without context, without objectivity, and without covering other non-religious drivers of dangerous behavior is no way to stop actual terrorists.”

Still, at Quantico, the alleged connection between Islam and violence isn’t just stipulated. It’s literally graphed.

Pages: 1 2 3 View All

Are you a scientist?

« If you're going to work... | Blog Home | Irrational vs. unreasonable »

Are you a scientist?

Scientists make predictions, and predicting the future is far more valuable than explaining the past.

Ask a physicist what will happen if you fire a projectile like this in that direction, and she'll know. Ask a chemist what happens if you mix x and y, and you'll get the right answer. Even quantum mechanics mechanics can give you probabilities that work out in the long run.

Analysts who come up with plausible explanations for what just happened don't help us as much, because it's not always easy to turn those explanations into useful action.

Take the layout of Craigslist. Just about any competent online designer would have predicted that it would fail. Too clunky, undesigned, too many links, not slick or trustworthy... Or consider a new r&b artist, or a brand new beverage.

After the fact, it's so easy to say, "of course it worked..." and then make up a reason for whatever it is that just succeeded.

The practice, then, is to start making predictions. In writing. You don't have to share them in public, but the habit will push you to understand your instincts and to sharpen your ability to see what works (and what doesn't) without the easy out of having to explain what already happened.

Look at startups or political campaigns or new products or ad campaigns... plenty of places to practice your predicting skills.

I predict you'll learn two things:

  1. It's really difficult to make predictions, because success often appears to be random
  2. Based on #1, it's probably smart for you to initiate more projects that aren't guaranteed winners, because most winners aren't guaranteed.

And a bonus... the more you practice your predictions, the better you'll get at discerning where the science is.

Email thisSubscribe to this feedShare on Facebook

Posted by Seth Godin on June 04, 2011 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b31569e201538ee9cdcb970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are you a scientist?:

« If you're going to work... | Blog Home | Irrational vs. unreasonable »

Organization vs. movement vs. philosophy

An organization uses structure and resources and power to make things happen. Organizations hire people, issue policies, buy things, erect buildings, earn market share and get things done. Your company is probably an organization.

A movement has an emotional heart. A movement might use an organization, but it can replace systems and people if they disappear. Movements are more likely to cause widespread change, and they require leaders, not managers. The internet, it turns out, is a movement, and every time someone tries to own it, they fail.

A philosophy can survive things that might wipe out a movement and that would decimate an organization. A philosophy can skip a generation or two. It is often interpreted, and is more likely to break into autonomous groups, to morph and split and then reunite. Industrialism was a philosophy.

The trouble kicks in when you think you have one and you actually have the other.

Do emerging markets deserve developed status?

Do emerging markets deserve developed status?

By Alan Taylor

Published: June 8 2011 12:29 | Last updated: June 8 2011 12:29

What would have been your reaction, circa 2006, to someone peddling the following forecast? There would soon erupt the worst, synchronised global financial crisis in 80 years, or possibly ever. World trade would start to collapse as fast as in 1929-31. Many developed markets (DMs) would experience deep recessions, the costliest banking crisis ever and would stagger toward fiscal calamity. But – guess what! – emerging markets (EMs), after a brief panic, would sail on unscathed. They would have no significant crises: currencies, banks and fiscal positions would retain stability. A two-track recovery would take EM growth on to a trajectory away from a troubling slump in the DM world.

Anyone cognisant of the fragility of “high beta” EMs in past episodes of global macroeconomic distress (the 1980s, the 1930s, or back to the 1870s) would have dismissed such thinking as wildly implausible. Yet this is precisely how things turned out, a remarkable turn of events that prompts some to ask if EMs are the new DMs.

Can the idea that EMs are “graduating” to DM status have merit – now or over the longer term? And, if so, what are the implications? At Morgan Stanley, we examined the macroeconomic characteristics of the EM-DM groups and their socio-political and institutional fundamentals. We find evidence that today’s EM economies may not have fully closed the gap, but they are in a stronger position than in previous moments of short-lived euphoria.

A central macroeconomic indicator, gross domestic product growth and its volatility, speaks to the reversal of fortune. Circa 1970, EMs exhibited high mean and high variance relative to DMs; but after 1980 this risk-reward combination evaporated as EMs suffered a lost decade. But from the 1990s EM growth picked up and volatility moderated; DM growth slowed and, after the crisis, volatility spiked. The EM advantage looks strong again, but other economic indicators buttress the case.

Since the 1980s, EMs achieved a conquest of inflation more dramatic than the DMs. They diversified their exports while opening up more to trade. And to enhance fiscal stability, they reduced public debts relative to GDP, while building large buffers of foreign reserves. EM sovereign ratings have been rising; DM ratings are now turning south.

Yet it would be a mistake to make a case for rethinking EM-DM differences based on narrow economic criteria alone. Long-run development success rests on deep determinants – factors such as health, education, freedoms and inequality. While the causal mechanisms are debated by researchers, these traits can be quantified and they too offer support for our EM-DM view.

On social indicators such as life expectancy and years of schooling, EM averages in 2005 had risen to levels comparable to those in the DMs in 1975. On indices of political and economic freedoms, where EMs scored about five out of 10 in the early 1980s, they now score seven or eight out of 10; close to DM levels of economic freedom and only lagging behind slightly on political freedom.

More impressive, however, are the likely implications for the global economy – some of which will mark a shift or even reversal of recent trends. With faster growth, EMs will overtake DMs as a share of the global economy and their high capital expenditure needs will boost global investment demand. With lower volatility and more fiscal resilience, the EMs’ precautionary saving motive may moderate, unleashing more consumption-led growth and less voracious hoarding of reserves. As investment rises and saving dwindles, the EM current account should decline or reverse – as should the frissons in policy circles triggered by the global imbalance issue.

But the implications for the DM world are also profound. As demographic pressures build and fiscal profligacy runs on, savings will be scarce here too, so real interest rates will probably rise. The abundance of investment opportunities in EMs will pull private capital out of DMs, creating a politically treacherous “sucking sound” that was long ago predicted but, in recent years, offset by official flows.

But while we paint a rosy picture of EM outperformance, there is one trend that policymakers ignore at their own peril – rising inequality. While EM incomes have tripled over the past three decades, not all boats have been lifted. Events in the Middle East show what public discontent can do to political and economic stability. EM policymakers would do well to heed this wake-up call.

As history shows, economic development “graduation” follows from consistently passing stern tests of economic and social capability. This once – but hopefully not for the last time – the EMs aced the examination.

Alan Taylor is professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, and a senior adviser at Morgan Stanley. This piece was co-authored by Manoj Pradhan, global EM economist and an executive director at Morgan Stanley

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

0){if( imageelement.length> 0 ){imageelement = imageelement + ",";}imageelement = imageelement + storyImages[i];}}var dateFormatted = formatDate(lastPublicationDateelement);var textarticle = "Clip this article";var urlelement = document.URL;var finalparameter = "http://clippings.ft.com/clipthis/js?containerid=clipthislinkcontainer&output=text&nocache=Math.random()&url=" + urlelement + "&title=" + headlineelement + "¬e=" + summaryelement + "&datepublished=" + dateFormatted + "&images=" + imageelement;var script = document.createElement("script") script.setAttribute("type", "text/javascript") script.setAttribute("src", finalparameter );document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(script);
via ft.com

Ontario awards $3-billion in green-energy contracts

The Ontario government is awarding roughly $3-billion in renewable-energy projects to dozens of companies, ranking it one of the province’s biggest investments of its kind.

The wind, solar and hydroelectric projects will provide enough electricity for about 200,000 households, enough to power a city the size of Burlington, Ont.

More related to this story

Energy Minister Brad Duguid announced the province’s second round of large-scale renewable-energy projects on Thursday at a news conference at the provincial legislature.

The projects will produce more than 872 megawatts of electricity from solar, wind and hydroelectric sources and create about 7,000 direct and indirect jobs. Last year, the government inked more than $8-billion in renewable-energy projects capable of producing 2,400 megawatts of power.

Mr. Duguid said the McGuinty government’s push to replace the province’s aging, pollution-spewing coal-fired electricity plants with clean energy is consistent with initiatives in the United States under the leadership of President Barack Obama.

“There’s no doubt Ontario has stepped up to Obama’s challenge, and together we’ve become a global clean-energy powerhouse,” Mr. Duguid said.

The McGuinty government is counting on clean-energy projects to create jobs in the province’s battered manufacturing heartland. Mr. McGuinty is vowing to create 50,000 new jobs through his Green Energy Act by luring investors with the promise of generous long-term contracts that include a guaranteed revenue stream.

The companies will receive a fixed price over 20 years for the electricity they produce – 13.5 cents a kilowatt hour for onshore wind farms and up to 80.2 cents for solar power. These contracts with green energy producers are well above the market price of 3.5 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity in Ontario and are one reason consumers’ hydro bills are climbing.

The latest announcement comes amid criticism by opposition members over the government’s recent policy reversals and snafus that have led to uncertainty in the green-energy sector.

The government halted development of offshore wind turbines earlier this month for further study. The government was caught off guard by the vehemence of opposition in lakeside communities. In the hopes of making the issue go away in an election year, it ruled out offshore entirely.

As well, companies seeking contracts for small solar projects recently had their plans stalled because there is not enough capacity on the electricity grid. Roughly 20,000 farmers were awarded contracts to place solar panels on their property. But this month, about 1,000 of them were informed that the province currently lacks the transmission capacity to move forward with their projects.

Mr. Duguid said the government has made some changes on how it communicates with small solar providers. But it was not clear whether he thought the onus was on the government to ensure these players could get access to the grid or the companies themselves.

On the large-scale projects unveiled on Thursday, there is enough capacity on the grid, he said, adding that unlike small projects they connect directly to the transmission system.

“These contracts are not awarded until the capacity is identified in the system,” he said.

Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman said there is uncertainty surrounding all of the government’s energy announcements.

“This is characteristic Brad Duguid,” he told reporters. “They make announcements like this and then they move away from them, leaving people in the lurch.”

White House Expects Federal Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion for Current Fiscal Year

By DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

WSJ's David Wessel reports on President Obama's proposed $3.73 trillion budget which calls for just over $1 trillion in spending cuts. Also, Apple plans to release a line of lower-priced iPhones that would compete with other smartphones on the market.

The projected deficit for 2011 is fueled in part by a tax-cut extension that President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers brokered in December, two senior administration officials said. It would equal 10.9% of gross domestic product, the largest deficit as a share of the economy since World War II.

The new estimate is part of Mr. Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, which becomes public Monday morning.

Mr. Obama is proposing $3.73 trillion in government spending in the next fiscal year, part of a plan that includes budget cuts and tax increases that administration officials believe will sharply bring down the federal deficit over 10 years.

The deficit would decline in fiscal year 2012 to $1.1 trillion, or 7% of gross domestic product, under Mr. Obama's plan, as a year-long payroll tax holiday and an extension of federal jobless benefits expired, administration officials said. By 2017, the budget plan says, the deficit would be shaved to $627 billion, or 3% of gross domestic product.

Senior administration officials said the new budget would address concerns about the country's long-term fiscal challenges while spending more money on education and research programs that the administration says are needed to boost economic growth.

But Mr. Obama's plan is likely to be rewritten by Republicans who control the House, as proposed spending cuts in his budget fall short of the reductions congressional Republicans are seeking.

Getty Images

Barack Obama is proposing $3.73 trillion in government spending in the next fiscal year.

obama0214

obama0214

Even before turning to Mr. Obama's plan for fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, lawmakers are battling over levels of government spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which House lawmakers will debate this week.

"We're very eager to work with Republicans to cut spending and reduce our deficit," a senior administration official said Sunday night.

At $1.65 trillion, the administration's projection for the 2011 deficit is significantly larger than the $1.48 trillion estimated by the non-\partisan Congressional Budget Office a few weeks ago. In fiscal year 2010, the deficit was $1.29 trillion.

White House officials believe their budget proposal would shave $1.1 trillion off of accumulated federal deficits over 10 years, which they believe would push levels of federal spending into a healthier balance.

That would be less than the $4 trillion in reductions the White House's deficit-reduction commission proposed in December, but it's still a level administration officials believe is achievable and sustainable.

The budget wouldn't do much, though, to arrest a future spike in the projected costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Mr. Obama has said he's open to making changes in these programs, but he wants cooperation from Republicans before he will begin.

The savings in the budget come from a combination of spending cuts and increases in revenue. A five-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending would save more than $400 billion over 10 years, the administration says.

The White House, in its plan for 2012, reduces certain programs to save an additional $33 billion. This includes more than $2 billion in cuts to travel, printing, supplies and other overhead costs. The plan also would cut more than $1 billion in grants to large airports and $950 million to revolving funds for state water treatment plants, among other things.

Associated Press

Willow Wimbush, left, and Nancy Harris, work on copies of the Appendix of the fiscal 2012 federal budget on Thursday at the U.S. Government Printing Office in Washington.

OBABUDGET

OBABUDGET

The proposed budget seeks to prevent many middle-class Americans from being subjected to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would raise their tax bills, for three years starting in fiscal 2012. To cover the cost, the administration would put new limits on the ability of the wealthiest earners to utilize tax deductions to lower their tax burden, among them deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest.

The Alternative Minimum Tax was designed to ensure that wealthier earners do not use deductions to avoid most or all taxes. Lawmakers in both parties want to find a long-term solution that limits its growing reach into middle-class households. But Republicans are unlikely to agree to what, in effect, is a tax increase on wealthier Americans to pay the cost of doing so..

The budget will also propose averting scheduled reductions in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients for the next two fiscal years, at a cost of $62 billion over 10 years. To cover the cost, savings would be found by making improvements in the health care delivery system that weren't detailed by administration officials.

The White House will propose cutting 12 tax breaks to oil, gas and coal companies, which it projected will raise $46 billion in revenue over 10 years.

The budget calls for $148 billion in overall spending on research and development, which includes $32 billion in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. It would create 20 new Economic Growth Zones, providing tax incentives meant to attract investors and employers in hard-hit economic areas.

The tax deal agreed to by the president and congressional Republicans in December extended all current tax rates for two years, continued an expanded federal jobless benefits program for a year, and exempted most Americans from having to pay payroll taxes for a year. When it was signed into law, it was estimated the compromise would cost more than $850 billion over the next decade.

Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com and Corey Boles at corey.boles@dowjones.com

With key index barriers breached, what comes next?

News from globeandmail.com

With key index barriers breached, what comes next?

Monday, February 7, 2011

SIMON AVERY

savery@globeandmail.com

Amid all the fear and uncertainty in the markets during the last year, stocks have slowly but steadily climbed to levels not seen since before the great financial crisis of 2008.

Major indexes are hovering near, or indeed have already broken through, key psychological barriers. Last week, the Dow Jones industrial average closed above 12,000 and the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index topped 1,300, levels not seen since June, 2008. In Toronto, the S&P/TSX composite index ended last week about 220 points short of the 14,000 mark.

It's not just North American markets that are closing in on these impressive markers. In Europe, London's FTSE 100 index has eclipsed the 6,000 level several times this year, France's CAC 40 is trending close to 4,000 and Germany's DAX recently crossed the 7,000-point threshold.

Technical analysts love events like these. They look at key resistance levels as a line in the sand between bulls and bears, and if the bulls can get across it and stay on the upside for a few trading sessions, the analysts consider the event a positive indicator of further gains.

The latest thresholds the markets have encountered are indeed big on the psychological level, with some acting as resistance points going back several years before the financial meltdown.

"What's quite intriguing is that with all the news out there it just seems as though things are in balance right now," says Colin Cieszynski, analyst with CMC Markets Canada Inc. He thinks that markets are probably fairly valued relative to current economic conditions and what people have anticipated for the near-term.

"Things are just starting to go sideways around these big psychological levels. It's like we've been drawn to them and now that we've gotten there people don't know quite what to do," he says. "It's possible markets could linger around these levels for some time until we get some kind of catalyst to kick them into gear again."

What that catalyst might be is anyone's guess. This week is light on economic reports. The most salient will likely be U.S. international trade figures for December coming on Friday. Economists forecast that the U.S. trade deficit expanded to $40-billion (U.S.), up from $38.3-billion in November, on higher oil prices and more consumer imports.

It might be one of the major central banks that triggers the break. On Wednesday, U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke testifies before the congressional House Budget Committee on the economy, jobs and the budget. But there is no reason to expect that he will shift his stance on the need for Fed stimulus as long as the country struggles to create jobs.

On Thursday, the Bank of England announces its latest monetary policy. Although an immediate rate hike is not expected, with inflation now running above the BOE's target in Britain, some say the market is beginning to price in coming increases.

Runaway commodity prices may also prove a significant force in shaping investor sentiment. Market-watchers generally believe that these rising prices won't initiate inflation in North America because unemployment remains so high, which means workers have little leverage to negotiate higher salaries.

But Ed Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist at Yardeni Research Inc., notes that the effect of high commodity prices is starting to hit corporate performance. Consumer staples, energy and materials are the only three sectors where the number of companies delivering positive earnings surprises for last quarter has increased. "The latest earnings season is showing a divergence between companies that benefit from higher commodity prices and those that get squeezed by the higher costs of their input materials," he wrote in a note last week.

Regardless of the actual news breaking in the coming days, seasoned investors will be watching the key resistance levels on the major indexes for more signals about the market's true strength.

With the stock markets doing as well as they are, there is the sense in the investor community that they are doing much better than they should be. With the trade deficits expanding and the economic indicators not improving substantially, what is behind this level of optimism?