Tenn State Agency labels ACLU: "terrorist Organization" [Archive]

Checkmite

28th December 2010, 12:07 PM

How so?

Tenn State Agency labels ACLU: "terrorist Organization"
That is most certainly true. Not misleading.

From the article:

A state government anti-terrorism agency placed the Tennessee ACLU on a map of “terrorism events and other suspicious activity” for sending a letter warning public schools not to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday.

On the Fusion Center’s website, the blinking map of Tennessee shows flashing icons. Rolling a computer’s cursor over the icons results in explanations popping up on the screen, none of which have anything to do with major terrorist plots. *The ACLU letter was highlighted under the icon for “suspicious activity.”

“ACLU cautions Tennessee schools about observing ‘one religious holiday,’” the website’s explanation reads.

Also among the map’s highlights: “McMinn County Teen Brings Gun to School,” and “Turkish National Salih Acarbulut Indicted in Chattanooga for Alleged $12 million Ponzi Scheme.”

At no point was the ACLU ever labeled a 'terrorist organization'. This one single act was described as 'suspicious activity', but the government is allowed to call anything it wants 'suspicious'.

thaiboxerken

28th December 2010, 12:11 PM

Wow, you reallylike to stretch logic until it feels tortured don't you?

Checkmite

28th December 2010, 12:31 PM

The article itself says in plain English that the letters were mentioned amongst a bunch of other stuff that is not terrorism-related. No spin, interpretation, or inference required.

thaiboxerken

28th December 2010, 12:35 PM

So what does "suspicious activity" mean to you, Checkmite? When you're at the airport and the announcer comes on and says to report "suspicious activity" to the authorities, do you flag down TSA and report to them that you suspect the lady on the bench is tired? Or maybe you report that you think the person wandering around looks suspiciously hungry.

Checkmite

28th December 2010, 12:40 PM

So what does "suspicious activity" mean to you, Checkmite?

To me, "suspicious activity" means "something that isn't inherently illegal but may possibly signal or lead to something illegal". "Possibly" meaning "not guaranteed, may be nothing". I suspect law enforcement's definition is similar.

thaiboxerken

28th December 2010, 12:44 PM

To me, "suspicious activity" means "something that isn't inherently illegal but may possibly signal or lead to something illegal". "Possibly" meaning "not guaranteed, may be nothing". I suspect law enforcement's definition is similar.

Suspiciously hungry people could get so starved as to rob a bank. The ACLU is suspiciously against mixing religion with government as to ...what?

Moss

28th December 2010, 12:49 PM

Did I miss something? Is actually reminding the schools of the spirit of the US constitution now a suspicious activity?

thaiboxerken

28th December 2010, 12:50 PM

Did I miss something? Is actually reminding the schools of the spirit of the US constitution now a suspicious activity?

Yes, suspiciously protecting the first amendment. I guess that's reason enough to be placed on a watch-list along with terrorists, according to Checkmite.

Checkmite

28th December 2010, 01:37 PM

I Am The Scum

28th December 2010, 01:43 PM

At no point was the ACLU ever labeled a 'terrorist organization'. This one single act was described as 'suspicious activity', but the government is allowed to call anything it wants 'suspicious'.

I'll concede that the thread title is not as spot-on as I initially surmised. However, the TN organization is there for the purpose of coordinating anti-terror activities. For them to focus on the activities of the ACLU shows that, at the least, they suspect that there is a possibility that the ACLU might be involved in terrorist activities. Such suspicion is not illegal. It is, however, absurd.

Of course, this only applies when one operates under the premise that these people are engaging in such suspicion under a fully professional capacity. I find it far more likely that somebody working there felt the need to let off a little political steam, cause the ACLU was trying to murder Jesus, or something.

In any case, this mess rightly deserves criticism.

thaiboxerken

28th December 2010, 01:52 PM

Ignoring my point...

Ok. Done, since it makes no sense.

Moss

28th December 2010, 01:53 PM

Ignoring my point, which is that being labelled 'suspicious' doesn't mean anything. The State of Tennessee isn't going to be sending shadow ninja stalkers to watch the ACLU now. So what difference does it make?

If you walk into a department store with a large oversize coat on, chances are private security will label you 'suspicious' and watch your every move on camera until you leave. Does this interfere with your shopping experience in any way?

Why is the label of "suspicious activity" then applied at all when no meaningful reaction follows? IMO it does sound like they are put on a watchlist and scrutinized more closely. For an activity that shouldn't be labeled suspicious at all.
Your analogy leads to the same conclusion. Being watched via CCTV does diminish my shopping experience. Because I hate generalized suspicion against customers.

Skeptic Ginger

28th December 2010, 03:52 PM

It would appear the negative publicity prompted the state agency to take the blinking spot down, or else I'm just having a hard time with their search engine.

http://tnfusion.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

The OP link says:A state government anti-terrorism agency placed the Tennessee ACLU on a map of “terrorism events and other suspicious activity” which is slightly different from the thread title, "labels ACLU: "terrorist Organization", but still very disturbing to even consider the letter newsworthy as it relates to the intent of the map.

Alareth

28th December 2010, 05:56 PM

And look at the Ignorati in the comments chomping at the bit to attack the ACLU.

Skeptic

28th December 2010, 08:18 PM

Did I miss something? Is actually reminding the schools of the spirit of the US constitution now a suspicious activity?

The ACLU is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people not Celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to Christianity to a captive audience" but also "no Christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere". This doesn't seem to me like "the spirit of the Constitution". In seems like mean-spirited oppression by vindictive people.

WildCat

28th December 2010, 08:34 PM

This thread... is suspicious.

Reported.

tyr_13

28th December 2010, 08:50 PM

the aclu is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people schools not celebrate christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to christianity to a captive audience" but also "no christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere in government funded classrooms". This doesn't seem to me like violating "the spirit of the constitution". in It seems like mean-spirited oppression intimidation by vindictive people some yahoo in a tenn state agency.

ftfy

Uncayimmy

28th December 2010, 08:50 PM

Babbylonian

28th December 2010, 08:54 PM

The ACLU is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people not Celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to Christianity to a captive audience" but also "no Christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere". This doesn't seem to me like "the spirit of the Constitution". In seems like mean-spirited oppression by vindictive people.
While I personally don't mind schools doing Christmas stuff (it's become a secular holiday for so many), it's a Christian holiday and I understand why it's best just left out of school. Kids get to celebrate Christmas all they want from at least Thanksgiving until the end of December when they're out of school and there's no need at all for them to have additional celebration of it in their public school.

My nephews' elementary school had a little concert a couple weeks ago with zero mention of any holiday and it was cool. They sang songs from all over the world and recited information about the culture that originated each one. I thought it was much better than having them sing Jingle Bells and Deck the Halls because they were being exposed to music and information that they're not going to be [over]saturated with everywhere else during the holiday season.

Good schools and teachers can put to good use the time they would previously have wasted with useless Christmas nonsense and Christians should jump on board. If they're worried their kids don't appreciate Jesus enough, they can always drag the kids to more church services...

Skeptic Ginger

28th December 2010, 09:48 PM

Accidental Martyr

28th December 2010, 11:56 PM

clown

29th December 2010, 01:02 AM

I love it when state agencies accuse each other of "suspicious" (In this article meaning "likely to be followed by illegal") activities for doing their job. What's next? Accusing fire-fighters answering emergency for breaking and entering? Accusing policeman for carrying (concealed) firearms in public and behaviour likely to cause affray?

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Bob Blaylock

29th December 2010, 02:04 AM

I think there is truly no more bizarre creation of the political left than the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary and appropriate to censor and suppress the expression of religious beliefs and heritage in certain contexts.

The purpose of the First Amendment is very specifically, explicitly, to protect the very rights that groups such as the ACLU are so determined to use it as an excuse to violate with impunity.

BobTheDonkey

29th December 2010, 02:28 AM

I think there is truly no more bizarre creation of the political left than the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary and appropriate to censor and suppress the expression of religious beliefs and heritage in certain contexts.

The purpose of the First Amendment is very specifically, explicitly, to protect the very rights that groups such as the ACLU are so determined to use it as an excuse to violate with impunity.

Amazing how people will twist reality to fit their preconceived notions.

"Must. Attack. A. C. L. U. at. ALL. COSTS. But. that. means. supporting. schools. that. want. to. violate. separation. of. church. and. state. Arrgghhh"

tyr_13

29th December 2010, 05:11 AM

While I personally don't mind schools doing Christmas stuff (it's become a secular holiday for so many), it's a Christian holiday and I understand why it's best just left out of school. Kids get to celebrate Christmas all they want from at least Thanksgiving until the end of December when they're out of school and there's no need at all for them to have additional celebration of it in their public school.

My nephews' elementary school had a little concert a couple weeks ago with zero mention of any holiday and it was cool. They sang songs from all over the world and recited information about the culture that originated each one. I thought it was much better than having them sing Jingle Bells and Deck the Halls because they were being exposed to music and information that they're not going to be [over]saturated with everywhere else during the holiday season.

Good schools and teachers can put to good use the time they would previously have wasted with useless Christmas nonsense and Christians should jump on board. If they're worried their kids don't appreciate Jesus enough, they can always drag the kids to more church services...

It's funny that you name two of the least religious 'Christmas*' songs I can think of. In school we used to sing only Christian songs at our 'Holiday' recital. When I pointed out that this might be a problem, the teacher said it wasn't, and had an administrator tell me it wasn't. Now thinking this was a bit of an over reaction to my mentioning that all the songs being obvious Christian ones, I looked up the New York state guild lines on unnecessary religious entanglement and it so happened that the exact example they used was singing only Christian religious songs at Christmas.

*I put Christmas in quotes because Jingle Bells was actually written about Thanksgiving.

Babbylonian

29th December 2010, 06:38 AM

It's funny that you name two of the least religious 'Christmas*' songs I can think of.
I did that on purpose. I mean, it's obvious that Silent Night would be entirely inappropriate, right?
In school we used to sing only Christian songs at our 'Holiday' recital.I know. I grew up here in Portland, Oregon (urban, relatively hip, pretty left) and even in the mid 80s when I was coming up, there was Christmas all over the schools and we sang all the Christian Christmas hits when I was in the school choir.
When I pointed out that this might be a problem, the teacher said it wasn't, and had an administrator tell me it wasn't. Now thinking this was a bit of an over reaction to my mentioning that all the songs being obvious Christian ones, I looked up the New York state guild lines on unnecessary religious entanglement and it so happened that the exact example they used was singing only Christian religious songs at Christmas. "Unnecessary" is the perfect word. I'll never be able to understand the logic behind the anti-anti-Christmas-in-school opinions. Is celebrating religious holidays really how those folks want our public school system to be spending its time?

Checkmite

29th December 2010, 08:19 AM

I'll concede that the thread title is not as spot-on as I initially surmised. However, the TN organization is there for the purpose of coordinating anti-terror activities. For them to focus on the activities of the ACLU shows that, at the least, they suspect that there is a possibility that the ACLU might be involved in terrorist activities. Such suspicion is not illegal. It is, however, absurd.

Absurd, perhaps - given the facts as we're acquainted with them. Outrageous? Reprehensible? Not in the very least. Individuals and events are quite routinely classed as 'suspicious', and just as often absolved of suspicion, every single day as the machine of law enforcement clanks on. While I understand that someone might feel incensed or have hurt feelings to find out that one of their favorite organizations' events was considered suspicious at some point, it's not any cause for alarm if they're not throwing people in jail.

Skeptic Ginger

29th December 2010, 09:54 AM

It makes little sense to draw conclusions about the ACLU's letter by how it has been represented by others without looking at the letter in more detail, and the reason it was sent (http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-tn-alerts-tennessee-public-schools-importance-inclusivity-holidays).NASHVILLE – Responding to numerous complaints from families about religious holiday activities in Tennessee public schools, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) sent a letter late yesterday to the 137 public school superintendents across the state. The letter reminded school officials that holiday celebrations focusing primarily on one religious holiday amount to a school's unconstitutional endorsement of religion.So the letter was initiated after numerous complaints by parents with kids in the schools in question. Just because public schools are not allowed to promote one religion over another is not a guarantee this law will be adhered to, and in fact, there are numerous pressures on schools especially in the South and in the Bible belt to inject Christianity into the public classroom. Just look at the push to insert Creationism in the science classroom in several states in that part of the country. Reintroducing school prayer is a campaign issue again and again. Atheist children are outcasts in some schools, there has been a documentary or two on the subject.

ACLU-TN's recent letter to superintendents, as well as the organization's "Know Your Rights: Religion in Public Schools – A Guide for Administrators and Teachers," can be found at www.aclu-tn.org/religiousfreedom.htm#resources.I can't access the site and I'm not sure why it would require a username and password. Maybe someone else can investigate that. But from the title I found the guide from a different ACLU site: Know Your Rights: Religion in Public Schools - A Guide for Administrators and Teachers (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wmyppw6QAocJ:www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/briefer_religion_in_public_schools.pdf+www.acluva. org+Know+Your+Rights:+Religion+in+Public+Schools+% E2%80%94+A+Guide+for+Administrators+and+Teachers&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgJ3BfV97_OnonIUdtk-m5wclObeKrpnBA5oTGzWQvWUnD14wN8kKDrCbiQAjaumWm5i0Q z-urIQWw0hUp9q-jIV8DkEx2_5ogQ4h9EJGlkOJ5R2guk-U6Huey7GhYdxRJrDKYK&sig=AHIEtbS_r7LE-UdxHepAiuLr-K9YcfJfnw), and a more thorough news summary of what is in it for those who don't want to read a 4 page paper: ACLU provides paper on religious rights in schools (http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9017364)

Re holidays:Holiday Celebrations
If public schools hold holiday celebrations, they should make every effort to accommodate diverse faiths during the holiday season. Students cannot be forced to participate in any event that offends his or her beliefs, and school officials should make every effort to accommodate diverse faiths during the holiday season by including their customs, songs and traditional foods at parties and other in-school events. However, assemblies dominated by religious music would raise constitutional concerns.

The United States Supreme Court has determined that schools may celebrate the holidays and create displays as long as they so do within “the context of the Christmas season” and the religious component of their display does not dominate but simply represents one element of a holiday that has obtained secular status in our society. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465.U.S. 668, 679, and 691 (1984). Under this ruling, a Christmas tree would be appropriate while a cross or a nativity scene would not. Crosses and nativity scenes are purely religious symbols that have not gained secular status in our society and therefore may not be displayed in public schools.

One should also note the paper cites a number of times/places religious activity, especially prayer, is allowed.“See You at the Pole”
Organized events such as “See You at the Pole” are permissible under certain conditions. “See You at the Pole” involves prayer meetings held before the start of the school day at a pre-arranged site on school grounds. Similar to guidelines outlined in the Equal Access Act, outside persons may not direct, conduct, control or regularly attend the activities of such student groups. Additionally, schools may not circumvent the ban against school-sponsored prayer by initiating such events and delegating the responsibilities to students, or by obtaining “permission” from parents. Furthermore, schools may not advertise or promote such events within the school either verbally or in writing. Within this framework schools prevent the impression of endorsement, equally respecting the practices of students of all religions.

Free Exercise of Religion
The ACLU has always defended students’ right to pray individually and voluntarily in school as long as they do not disrupt regular school activities. For example, students may be allowed to read their Bibles on the school bus or pray together before lunch; however, they may not force other students to read along or listen. We also have defended the Free Exercise rights of students of many faiths when government officials have interfered with their religious freedom. To cite just a few examples, the ACLU has defended: a high school basketball player in Alabama kicked off the team because he missed Sunday practice in order to attend church; an eighth grader in California barred from wearing a shirt that read “Real Women Love Jesus;” and a Vermont family who refused to provide their child’s Social Security Number to school authorities because of their fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

For the state to even consider this letter as something worthy of remote association with terrorism was absolutely ludicrous at best and very worrisome at worst.

Skeptic Ginger

29th December 2010, 09:58 AM

... Individuals and events are quite routinely classed as 'suspicious', and just as often absolved of suspicion, every single day as the machine of law enforcement clanks on. While I understand that someone might feel incensed or have hurt feelings to find out that one of their favorite organizations' events was considered suspicious at some point, it's not any cause for alarm if they're not throwing people in jail.Looking at my above post citations, Checkmite, do tell us how anyone could have possibly mistakenly classified this letter or the ACLU as "suspicious"

I Am The Scum

29th December 2010, 10:10 AM

Uncayimmy

29th December 2010, 10:20 AM

Looking at my above post citations, Checkmite, do tell us how anyone could have possibly mistakenly classified this letter or the ACLU as "suspicious"

When the letters were opened, a little puff of powder came out?

thaiboxerken

29th December 2010, 12:28 PM

I like how people are defending the "oppressed Christian" mainstream here.

Babbylonian

29th December 2010, 12:58 PM

I like how people are defending the "oppressed Christian" mainstream here.
If you can't see how Christians are being held down by godless, heathen atheists every single day then...

Yeah, I can't see it either.

drkitten

29th December 2010, 01:27 PM

I think there is truly no more bizarre creation of the political left than the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary and appropriate to censor and suppress the expression of religious beliefs and heritage in certain contexts.

Well, there's a reason for that. That idea is not a creation of the political left, but a straw-man projected onto the ACLU by the political right in order to justify policies that violate the rights of minority religions not to have an popular religion 'established' upon them.

Precisely because the ACLU is right.... and has been well-documented to be right, as witnessed by the number of court cases it's won on this issue,... it must be demonized and misrepresented by the would-be theocrats on the political right.

The purpose of the First Amendment is very specifically, explicitly, to protect the very rights that groups such as the ACLU are so determined to use it as an excuse to violate with impunity.

And once again, Bob Blaylock illustrates that his political theories are entirely orthogonal not only to constitutional law, but also to common sense.

Checkmite

29th December 2010, 07:23 PM

Looking at my above post citations, Checkmite, do tell us how anyone could have possibly mistakenly classified this letter or the ACLU as "suspicious"

The citations from the pamphlet aren't relevant, because that wasn't what was sent. But the actual letter (the site works for me) doesn't seem all that horrible. Unfortunately, all that really leads me to believe is that it was possibly something aside from the text of the letter that was found "suspicious". Perhaps the packaging? The return address? Perhaps mass-mailing every single superintendent was reminiscent of some past criminal activity in a separate case? I don't know - and you can't really expect an explanation from the state, because if there's any kind of "here's things that are officially suspicious" policy list it's obvious that law enforcement would not want to make that public. Even so, determining what is suspicious and what is not is law enforcement's bag. There would be concern if it was a matter of racial or sexual features or whatnot figuring into who or what is or is not suspicious, but as that doesn't seem to be the case here I don't see why there's basis for censure. For whatever reason, this specific letter-writing event was found suspicious. Obviously nothing came of it, so...? It's equally absurd to gimp law enforcement by preventing it from noticing some given activity involving government offices and simply dog-earing the page corner in case they wanted to take a closer look later, which seems to be pretty much all this was.

Skeptic Ginger

29th December 2010, 10:20 PM

The citations from the pamphlet aren't relevant, because that wasn't what was sent. But the actual letter (the site works for me) doesn't seem all that horrible. Unfortunately, all that really leads me to believe is that it was possibly something aside from the text of the letter that was found "suspicious". Perhaps the packaging? The return address? Perhaps mass-mailing every single superintendent was reminiscent of some past criminal activity in a separate case? I don't know - and you can't really expect an explanation from the state, because if there's any kind of "here's things that are officially suspicious" policy list it's obvious that law enforcement would not want to make that public. Even so, determining what is suspicious and what is not is law enforcement's bag. There would be concern if it was a matter of racial or sexual features or whatnot figuring into who or what is or is not suspicious, but as that doesn't seem to be the case here I don't see why there's basis for censure. For whatever reason, this specific letter-writing event was found suspicious. Obviously nothing came of it, so...? It's equally absurd to gimp law enforcement by preventing it from noticing some given activity involving government offices and simply dog-earing the page corner in case they wanted to take a closer look later, which seems to be pretty much all this was.Now I can open the site, the 'ID/password needed' glitch is gone.

I find your, "maybe it was [x]" to be a stretch. You have zero evidence to support your speculation, when confronted the state agency made no such excuse and instead back peddled. OTOH, there is lots of evidence for a high level of Christianity practiced within the state and within the school district. The ACLU cited numerous parental complaints from the school population. It's much more likely some Christian within the state agency was offended and responded rashly to the perceived "war on Christmas" that Fox News and other groups promote. Bet his superiors weren't happy.

BTW, here's the link to the letter (http://www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/Superintendent_letter_holidays.pdf) now that the site isn't blocked. Of course there is nothing bad there. What did you expect?

Checkmite

30th December 2010, 08:56 AM

Now I can open the site, the 'ID/password needed' glitch is gone.

I find your, "maybe it was [x]" to be a stretch. You have zero evidence to support your speculation, when confronted the state agency made no such excuse and instead back peddled. OTOH, there is lots of evidence for a high level of Christianity practiced within the state and within the school district.

That is true, but it does not logically follow that, therefore,

It's much more likely some Christian within the state agency was offended and responded rashly to the perceived "war on Christmas" that Fox News and other groups promote.

If we're going to be intellectually honest, we've got to admit that there's exactly as much evidence to support that speculation as there is to support any particular item on my obviously random and arbitrary list (which was followed by "I don't know").

Babbylonian

30th December 2010, 12:22 PM

If we're going to be intellectually honest, we've got to admit that there's exactly as much evidence to support that speculation as there is to support any particular item on my obviously random and arbitrary list (which was followed by "I don't know").
No, while it's still speculation, it's based on the evidence provided by the content of the actual letter. Your speculations about there perhaps being something wrong with the "packaging," maybe being similar in MO to some previous criminal case, etc. are without any evidence whatsoever.

Skeptic Ginger

30th December 2010, 01:17 PM

No, while it's still speculation, it's based on the evidence provided by the content of the actual letter. Your speculations about there perhaps being something wrong with the "packaging," maybe being similar in MO to some previous criminal case, etc. are without any evidence whatsoever.Exactly.

Here's an example of the evidence:

O'Reilly on ACLU: "I think they're a terrorist group. ... I think they're terrorists" (http://mediamatters.org/research/200503030007)In the past, O'Reilly has called the ACLU "the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now ... second next to Al Qaeda" and "a fascist organization." He has also said that "Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin."There are links to those additional charges embedded in the original text.

Add that to O'Reilly's obsession with the "war on Christmas" and it at least supports this action being based on the letter and the ACLU and not on some extra circumstance like a powder in the envelopes. O'Reilly's views are shared by many.

O'Reilly: "War" on Christmas part of "secular progressive agenda" that includes "legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200511210003)

thaiboxerken

30th December 2010, 01:41 PM

It's silly to argue with Checkmite on this. He's arguing semantics while ignoring the syntax.

Checkmite

30th December 2010, 02:23 PM

Exactly.

Here's an example of the evidence:

O'Reilly on ACLU: "I think they're a terrorist group. ... I think they're terrorists" (http://mediamatters.org/research/200503030007)There are links to those additional charges embedded in the original text.

Add that to O'Reilly's obsession with the "war on Christmas" and it at least supports this action being based on the letter and the ACLU and not on some extra circumstance like a powder in the envelopes. O'Reilly's views are shared by many.

O'Reilly: "War" on Christmas part of "secular progressive agenda" that includes "legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200511210003)

Hmmm...seems to me that unless O'Reilly is a Tennessee State law enforcement officer, this is "evidence" of nothing. That some individual somewhere might call the ACLU terroristic doesn't, for instance, address why this action of the ACLU was described as suspicious by the state of Tennessee and no others seem to have been.

Checkmite

30th December 2010, 02:25 PM

It's silly to argue with Checkmite on this. He's arguing semantics while ignoring the syntax.

No, I just don't like the idea of presumptious declarations without direct evidence suddenly being okay amongst a group of people who regularly chastise others for those same tactics.

Skeptic Ginger

30th December 2010, 05:26 PM

Hmmm...seems to me that unless O'Reilly is a Tennessee State law enforcement officer, this is "evidence" of nothing. That some individual somewhere might call the ACLU terroristic doesn't, for instance, address why this action of the ACLU was described as suspicious by the state of Tennessee and no others seem to have been.
So you are claiming we can't assume anyone in Tenn is an O'Reilly fan or watches his program? And it is unlikely if O'Reilly's views are very popular, which they are, that they represent the views of anyone in Tenn?

BobTheDonkey

30th December 2010, 05:38 PM

So you are claiming we can't assume anyone in Tenn is an O'Reilly fan or watches his program? And it is unlikely if O'Reilly's views are very popular, which they are, that they represent the views of anyone in Tenn?

Correlation =/= Causation.

Skeptic Ginger

30th December 2010, 05:40 PM

Like shooting fish in a barrel ;) :

HAX-TZJ2UYI

Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused [Knoxville] shooter's reading list; 4-page letter outlines frustration, hatred of 'liberal movement' (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/)

Tennessee becomes a red state (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101103/tr_ac/7111146_tennessee_becomes_a_red_state)Over 1 million Tennesseans chose the Republican [governor], with only about 527,000 voting for Democrat Mike McWherter,That's relative because it involves who is in charge of the 'Fusion Center'.

Skeptic Ginger

30th December 2010, 05:41 PM

Correlation =/= Causation.No one is talking about causation. I'm talking about CORRELATION!!!

Checkmite

31st December 2010, 02:35 PM

Skeptic Ginger

31st December 2010, 09:01 PM

I've been talking about causation from the beginning. And you certainly are talking about it to when you claim that it's 'likely' some state official decided to label this event suspicious on a government website because he felt the 'attack on Christian Christmas' was 'terrorism'.
You are lost in the discussion here. We've been posting supporting evidence not conclusive evidence.

If one were to show causation one would need to find the specific agent who put the ACLU on the terrorist list and ask him what his motive was.

All we can show at this point is correlation. Christianity is prevalent in Tennessee. Many Christians view requests to stop school prayer and stop promoting Christian celebrations in schools as attacks on Christmas and Christians. Fox promotes this view. And since the ACLU is frequently in support of separation of church and public school, people like O'Reilly and his many like minded followers have said publicly they believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization.

There is no better explanation for how the ACLU came to be mentioned on the state's terrorism notice board than people with these beliefs. The evidence presented SUPPORTS this conclusion. There is ZERO evidence supporting excuses like maybe there was powder in the envelopes.

BobTheDonkey

31st December 2010, 09:14 PM

You are lost in the discussion here. We've been posting supporting evidence not conclusive evidence.

If one were to show causation one would need to find the specific agent who put the ACLU on the terrorist list and ask him what his motive was.

All we can show at this point is correlation. Christianity is prevalent in Tennessee. Many Christians view requests to stop school prayer and stop promoting Christian celebrations in schools as attacks on Christmas and Christians. Fox promotes this view. And since the ACLU is frequently in support of separation of church and public school, people like O'Reilly and his many like minded followers have said publicly they believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization.

There is no better explanation for how the ACLU came to be mentioned on the state's terrorism notice board than people with these beliefs. The evidence presented SUPPORTS this conclusion. There is ZERO evidence supporting excuses like maybe there was powder in the envelopes.

Again, correlation =/= causation. You are attempting to wrap pure speculation in the guise of evidence and sell it. That you've essentially admitted as much doesn't change that this is exactly what you're doing, nor does your admittance of this make this less fallacious or a somehow acceptable line of reasoning.

I Am The Scum

1st January 2011, 08:19 AM

Again, correlation =/= causation. You are attempting to wrap pure speculation in the guise of evidence and sell it. That you've essentially admitted as much doesn't change that this is exactly what you're doing, nor does your admittance of this make this less fallacious or a somehow acceptable line of reasoning.

But this is about finding the best explanation for an event. The Fusion Center has now admitted that this "suspicious activity" is not suspicious at all, so we can rule out that possibility. As far as I'm aware, this leaves us with two primary choices:

1. The ACLU was placed on the map because somebody at the TN center (possibly just one airhead in their tech department) felt that the ACLU was trying to destroy Christmas, and really, that's basically the same thing as murdering Jesus, which is like shooting Uncle Sam.

2. The ACLU letter was placed on their map as a "general news" item, even though the TN center doesn't place general news items on the map, didn't have an icon for non-suspicious events, and is certainly not in the business of sharing interesting stories and current events.

I find option 1 to be more likely.

Uncayimmy

1st January 2011, 09:57 AM

Skeptic Ginger

1st January 2011, 11:07 AM

Again, correlation =/= causation. You are attempting to wrap pure speculation in the guise of evidence and sell it. That you've essentially admitted as much doesn't change that this is exactly what you're doing, nor does your admittance of this make this less fallacious or a somehow acceptable line of reasoning.Again, yes, and it was not an "attempt" it was to support 'evidence based' SPECULATION. I have never said it wasn't speculation. Your straw man is a total FAIL.

You are missing the beginning of the discussion. Zero evidence was presented to support the 'speculation' that the listing of the ACLU's letters to the schools as terrorist related could have been because they found powder in the letters. That is the PURE speculation IE nothing whatsoever to support it.

I Speculatedg that the actual reason was some Christians saw the ACLU's activities to keep Christian religious activities out of public schools as upsetting to said Christians. SOME evidence, as opposed to ZERO evidence was presented to support that SPECULATION.

I have never claimed that I PROVED that was the CAUSE. I merely claimed that there is more evidence of anti-ACLU bias by one or more individuals in the Tennessee office involved than there is evidence of some unrelated reason for the listing. If there was something like powder in the envelopes it makes sense that would have been in the notice.

Skeptic Ginger

1st January 2011, 11:14 AM

The only reason that this letter wouldn't be suspicious is because it was sent from the ACLU, which is not known for violent activity. Other than that, in general terms it's suspicious: a group known to protest the government took the unusual step of contacting every public school. The more I think about it, the less concerned I am about it.
So are you saying the ACLU belongs on a terrorism news board because they protest illegal government actions? Groups that serve to keep public schools from breaking the law are "suspicious"?

And multiple parental complaints resulting in a very benign letter (there's a link to it above) being sent to multiple schools is an "unusual" step?

Wow.

Skeptic Ginger

1st January 2011, 11:16 AM

Beerina

1st January 2011, 11:21 AM

To me, "suspicious activity" means "something that isn't inherently illegal but may possibly signal or lead to something illegal". "Possibly" meaning "not guaranteed, may be nothing". I suspect law enforcement's definition is similar.

By that definition, the ACLU did nothing suspicious. Now the local school districts, by "celebrating Christmas", would be doing something illegal. And that they may try to do it cryptically is suspicious.

Uncayimmy

1st January 2011, 11:37 AM

So are you saying the ACLU belongs on a terrorism news board because they protest illegal government actions? Groups that serve to keep public schools from breaking the law are "suspicious"?

And multiple parental complaints resulting in a very benign letter (there's a link to it above) being sent to multiple schools is an "unusual" step?

Wow.

Yet another failure of reading comprehension. What I wrote was, "The only reason that this letter wouldn't be suspicious is because it was sent from the ACLU, which is not known for violent activity." How can you possibly jump from that to claiming that I believe that the ACLU is a terrorist organization? Did I not just say that it wouldn't be suspicious because they are a known quantity that is not linked to terrorism?

As for the letter being unusual, it is most certainly highly unusual for any organization to send a letter to every school reminding them to obey the law, especially when they have no direct connection to the school whatsoever. Of course, you can refute this by showing (say) that the ACLU (or some other group) does this on a routine basis. I look forward to your presentation of actual evidence rather than speculation based on TV shows. I will gladly retract my claim should you provide such evidence.

Tell me, do you regularly get letters from groups telling you to follow the law regarding your alleged medical practice? Might you consider such a benign letter a wolf in sheep's clothing?

BobTheDonkey

1st January 2011, 11:39 AM

But this is about finding the best explanation for an event. The Fusion Center has now admitted that this "suspicious activity" is not suspicious at all, so we can rule out that possibility. As far as I'm aware, this leaves us with two primary choices:

1. The ACLU was placed on the map because somebody at the TN center (possibly just one airhead in their tech department) felt that the ACLU was trying to destroy Christmas, and really, that's basically the same thing as murdering Jesus, which is like shooting Uncle Sam.

2. The ACLU letter was placed on their map as a "general news" item, even though the TN center doesn't place general news items on the map, didn't have an icon for non-suspicious events, and is certainly not in the business of sharing interesting stories and current events.

I find option 1 to be more likely.

You've constructed a wonderful false dichotomy based on assumptions for which there is no causal evidence. That's the bottom line.

It's fine to speculate, but the speculation should be supportable. Which in this case, is not. This is the essence of correlation =/= causation. There is no reason, aside from mere speculation, to assume the ACLU was put on the radar due to it's "War on Christmas" as opposed to the fact that multiple letters were sent to multiple schools/facilities.

There are two sides to this discussion. If I'm the head guy at the Fusion Center and I receive reports that a mass-mailing occurred, I would perhaps put the mailing on the map until I've verified that the letters did actually originate from the ACLU and are, in fact, nothing to be concerned about (aside from the legal implications contained within). On the other hand, people are automatically stepping past the first step there and assuming that since we know the letters did, in fact, come from the ACLU, there was no need to be concerned.

Regardless, that little scenario right there blows your "well, this is just speculating about the most likely cause" line into oblivion. That line of yours is about assigning causation based solely on perceived biases that are not, in fact, in evidence. It doesn't matter what 99.9999% of the population in TN believes about God, Jesus, and the "War on Xmas". It matters what the Director of the Fusion Center (or whoever it is that puts the stuff on the map) believes. And even that only evidences correlation, not causation.

Just because I don't believe in God, Jesus, or the "War on Xmas" does not mean I would label a local church as "suspicious" just for sending out a mass mailing. Likewise, I wouldn't give an unknown entity claiming to be the ACLU a free-pass simply because I agree with much of their politics.

SG, my post was not a strawman of your position. It was precisely what you have stated your position is: a position relying purely on speculation based only on correlation without a single shred of evidence that indicates actual causation.

Again, correlation =/= causation, not now, not ever. If you want to connect your evidence regarding religious viewpoints in TN to the actions regarding the ACLU, you need to show the evidence linking the two. Not just:

1) There are lots of religious fundies in TN
2) ???
3) The ACLU was put on the map due to religious fundies.

Step 2 is where your argument fails.

Skeptic Ginger

1st January 2011, 11:43 AM

I think I should point another thing out here re the causation vs correlation confusion. Correlation does not EXCLUDE causation, it merely is not enough evidence to PROVE causation. The way the argument is being misconstrued is claiming it is either one or the other. But actually, proving causation includes and proves correlation.

This side track straw man started with an objection to something which was never claimed. 'Proof' of a cause was never claimed. 'Some' vs 'no' correlation was claimed even though causation was the thing being speculated about.

Skeptic Ginger

1st January 2011, 12:24 PM

Yet another failure of reading comprehension. What I wrote was, "The only reason that this letter wouldn't be suspicious is because it was sent from the ACLU, which is not known for violent activity." How can you possibly jump from that to claiming that I believe that the ACLU is a terrorist organization? Did I not just say that it wouldn't be suspicious because they are a known quantity that is not linked to terrorism?

As for the letter being unusual, it is most certainly highly unusual for any organization to send a letter to every school reminding them to obey the law, especially when they have no direct connection to the school whatsoever. Of course, you can refute this by showing (say) that the ACLU (or some other group) does this on a routine basis. I look forward to your presentation of actual evidence rather than speculation based on TV shows. I will gladly retract my claim should you provide such evidence.

Tell me, do you regularly get letters from groups telling you to follow the law regarding your alleged medical practice? Might you consider such a benign letter a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Reading comprehension 101: What does a '?' mean? It means your post required CLARIFICATION. Your gratuitous insult implying you are the perfect communicator and any lack of clarity must be the reader's incompetence is duly noted and filed in the round file.

Reading comprehension 102: UY:"claiming that I believe that the ACLU is a terrorist organization". No, I carefully said, "belongs on a terrorism news board", purposefully avoiding saying, "is a terrorist organization".

Back to the discussion, we all know the ACLU is not a terrorist organization. Did you miss the link to O'Reilly saying the ACLU was a terrorist organization? Did you miss the state's retraction when confronted with the outrageous action of putting the ACLU on the board in the first place? They backpedaled immediately and said it was only a news event, still unable to explain why that news event belonged on the board in the first place. And later, I believe because I cannot find the story on the board, they removed the story from the board altogether.

As for sending the letter being "most certainly highly unusual for any organization to send a letter to every school reminding them to obey the law....", this is pointless without a reason to connect the 'unusual' in your mind to, belongs on a terrorism news board. I think it is for you to show that there are numerous other notices on the board simply because they are 'unusual'. Or at a minimum, come up with an explanation that is more than PURE speculation why this 'unusual event' could be connected in any way to terrorism. As has been pointed out already, there are no other 'just unusual news' reports on the board.

We have already provided SOME evidence that some people see the ACLU as a terrorist organization. And a lot of people view the so called "war on Christmas" that O'Reilly frequently harps about as an affront to their way of life.

As for the letters being unusual for the ACLU, that's not hard to refute. They have sent multiple letters to Tennessee school officials in the past. And the pamphlet they sent the schools in this case wasn't developed to sit on their shelf. It was developed to distribute to schools! :rolleyes:

This month, the ACLU wrote to the San Diego Unified School District in response to...In three separate letters, the ACLU listed fees that (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/18/aclu-takes-school-fee-effort-north-and-east/)

Letter to School Officials About Addressing Anti-LGBT Bullying (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/letter-school-officials-about-addressing-anti-lgbt-bullying)

ACLU Demands Tennessee Schools Stop Censoring Gay Educational Websites (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/aclu-demands-tennessee-schools-stop-censoring-gay-educational-websites)As many as 107 Tennessee public school districts could be illegally preventing students from accessing online information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, according to a letter to sent to school officials by the American Civil Liberties Union. The letter demands that Knox County Schools, Metro Nashville Public Schools, and the Tennessee Schools Cooperative unblock the Internet filtering category designated “LGBT” so that students can access political and educational information about LGBT issues on school computers.

Letter to Tennessee schools is hardly something Tennessee has never seen before.

Uncayimmy

1st January 2011, 12:52 PM

Reading comprehension 101: What does a '?' mean? It means your post required CLARIFICATION.
No, my post did not require CLARIFICATION because you were making ERRONEOUS assumptions CREATED in your own MIND.

Your gratuitous insult implying you are the perfect communicator and any lack of clarity must be the reader's incompetence is duly noted and filed in the round file.
I was merely making a CORRELATION.

Back to the discussion, we all know the ACLU is not a terrorist organization. Did you miss the link to O'Reilly saying the ACLU was a terrorist organization?
You mean O'Reilly, the ENTERTAINER, who uses hyperbole to attract attention and keep his ratings up?

Did you miss the state's retraction when confronted with the outrageous action of putting the ACLU on the board in the first place? They backpedaled immediately and said it was only a news event, still unable to explain why that news event belonged on the board in the first place. And later, I believe because I cannot find the story on the board, they removed the story from the board altogether.
No, I didn't MISS it.

As for sending the letter being "most certainly highly unusual for any organization to send a letter to every school reminding them to obey the law....", this is pointless without a reason to connect the 'unusual' in your mind to, belongs on a terrorism news board. I think it is for you to show that there are numerous other notices on the board simply because they are 'unusual'. Or at a minimum, come up with an explanation that is more than PURE speculation why this 'unusual event' could be connected in any way to terrorism. As has been pointed out already, there are no other 'just unusual news' reports on the board.
You questioned my judgment that it was unusual for an organization unconnected to a government entity to send out bulk mailings to remind said entity to follow the law. So, the above is just a long-winded way of saying that you agree that it's not unusual.

We have already provided SOME evidence that some people see the ACLU as a terrorist organization. And a lot of people view the so called "war on Christmas" that O'Reilly frequently harps about as an affront to their way of life.
So, O'Reilly is a terrorist?

As for the letters being unusual for the ACLU, that's not hard to refute. They have sent multiple letters to Tennessee school officials in the past. And the pamphlet they sent the schools in this case wasn't developed to sit on their shelf. It was developed to distribute to schools! :rolleyes:

Well, let's look at your evidence that sending letters to every school is par for the course.

This month, the ACLU wrote to the San Diego Unified School District in response to...In three separate letters, the ACLU listed fees that (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/18/aclu-takes-school-fee-effort-north-and-east/)
A letter to the superintendent. FAIL.

Letter to School Officials About Addressing Anti-LGBT Bullying (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/letter-school-officials-about-addressing-anti-lgbt-bullying)
A letter to the school board. FAIL.

ACLU Demands Tennessee Schools Stop Censoring Gay Educational Websites (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/aclu-demands-tennessee-schools-stop-censoring-gay-educational-websites)
A letter to the school board. FAIL.

Letter to Tennessee schools is hardly something Tennessee has never seen before.
You have not shown any evidence that individual schools have been contacted by the ACLU. School boards and superintendents? Sure. But individual schools all at once? Still waiting for the EVIDENCE.

You didn't answer my question:
Tell me, do you regularly get letters from groups telling you to follow the law regarding your alleged medical practice? Might you consider such a benign letter a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Checkmite

2nd January 2011, 09:33 PM

I have never claimed that I PROVED that was the CAUSE.

No; you're merely convinced that it is, and incredibly defensive when someone points out that your allegedly-supportive evidence is circumstantial and quite possibly merely coincidental as opposed to "supportive" of anything.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd January 2011, 09:58 PM

No; you're merely convinced that it is, and incredibly defensive when someone points out that your allegedly-supportive evidence is circumstantial and quite possibly merely coincidental as opposed to "supportive" of anything.I know you are having a hard time here recognizing which way the wind blows, but if a valid news report came out tomorrow saying there was powder in the envelopes, or some other EVIDENCE BASED explanation for putting the ACLU on a news board for terrorism events besides the explanation that currently BEST FITS THE EVIDENCE WE DO HAVE, I'd be reassessing my conclusion.

You are essentially saying ignore the evidence because it isn't conclusive, in favor of a conclusion which is made up out of thin air.

I'll go where the evidence leans, thank you.

HumanityBlues

2nd January 2011, 10:18 PM

I totally agree with the ACLU being put on some terrorist list. They are just like Al Qaeda, bringing their cases into federal court in an effort to expand our Constitutional rights.

Checkmite

3rd January 2011, 08:32 AM

You are essentially saying ignore the evidence because it isn't conclusive, in favor of a conclusion which is made up out of thin air.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that what you claim to be evidence isn't really evidence.

Surely there are people - media pundits - that have described the ACLU as terroristic. But unless you can show that these individuals have positions within the Tennessee government that would allow them to declare any ACLU event suspicious, then they don't have the weight you claim they do. The fact that such people exist speaks only to the plausibility of your proposed scenario, not it's probability. The same way that the fact some people have in the past really sent letters with "powder" in them or tampered packaging (or whatever, etc) makes those scenarios plausible but not necessarily more likely than any other possibility.

There is not enough information to decide logically whether any possibility is more likely than any other in this case. Your opinion that offended Christians seeking revenge is the most probable explanation is informed by your own prejudices, not the facts.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 11:46 AM

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that what you claim to be evidence isn't really evidence.I do believe most people in the thread agree it is evidence.

O'Reilly has many followers who hold his beliefs. O'Reilly publicly stated he believes the ACLU is a terrorist group.

If you don't think that is evidence, you are in denial.

You are welcome to say you are not convinced by the evidence. No one has claimed the evidence is proof someone in the Tennessee State office seriously viewed the ACLU letter as some kind of 'terror' related news event. We are saying it is the best explanation for the evidence we do have.

You've offered an alternative explanation, maybe there was something about the letters unrelated to the ACLU who sent them. You have yet to provide ANY evidence to support that, and especially evidence which makes the alternative explanation better at explaining the whole picture we have from all the evidence, (IE the evidence we have plus the hypothetical evidence you have yet to provide).

Surely there are people - media pundits - that have described the ACLU as terroristic. But unless you can show that these individuals have positions within the Tennessee government that would allow them to declare any ACLU event suspicious, then they don't have the weight you claim they do. The fact that such people exist speaks only to the plausibility of your proposed scenario, not it's probability. The same way that the fact some people have in the past really sent letters with "powder" in them or tampered packaging (or whatever, etc) makes those scenarios plausible but not necessarily more likely than any other possibility.

There is not enough information to decide logically whether any possibility is more likely than any other in this case. ...There is not enough evidence to say for certain. There is enough evidence to say it's the best explanation for the evidence.

... Your opinion that offended Christians seeking revenge is the most probable explanation is informed by your own prejudices, not the facts.That's not a valid paraphrasing of my tentative conclusion. Claiming I think "revenge" has anything to do with this is a total straw man.

Christians being offended by what they perceive as a 'war on Christmas', and take personally as interfering with their Christian beliefs, are more likely to view the ACLU as supporting Muslims. That translates into, supports terrorist groups.

Some right wing Christians, like Bill O'Reilly, associate defenders of minority views as un-American if those minority views are in conflict with right wing Christian views. This is the same thing which led people to claim anti-Vietnam war protestors were also communists despite the fact that was false.

Seeking to keep Christian religious practices out of public schools is seen as being in conflict with right wing Christian views. The letter the ACLU sent to the schools could have been viewed by an individual or individuals in the state office as an attack in their Christian views. This leads some people, for example, O'Reilly, to view the ACLU as attacking America, or the American way of life, (Remember, "They hate our freedoms).

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 12:17 PM

I do believe most people in the thread agree it is evidence.
I don't. It's a bunch of speculation. It reminds me of the Big Pharma arguments.

You are welcome to say you are not convinced by the evidence. No one has claimed the evidence is proof someone in the Tennessee State office seriously viewed the ACLU letter as some kind of 'terror' related news event. We are saying it is the best explanation for the evidence we do have.
When I clean up dog poop in my back yard, the best formed turd is still, in fact, a turd.

You have not shown any evidence that individual schools have been contacted by the ACLU. School boards and superintendents? Sure. But individual schools all at once? Still waiting for the EVIDENCE.

You didn't answer my question:
Tell me, do you regularly get letters from groups telling you to follow the law regarding your alleged medical practice? Might you consider such a benign letter a wolf in sheep's clothing?

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 01:06 PM

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that what you claim to be evidence isn't really evidence.

Surely there are people - media pundits - that have described the ACLU as terroristic. But unless you can show that these individuals have positions within the Tennessee government that would allow them to declare any ACLU event suspicious, then they don't have the weight you claim they do. The fact that such people exist speaks only to the plausibility of your proposed scenario, not it's probability. The same way that the fact some people have in the past really sent letters with "powder" in them or tampered packaging (or whatever, etc) makes those scenarios plausible but not necessarily more likely than any other possibility.

There is not enough information to decide logically whether any possibility is more likely than any other in this case. Your opinion that offended Christians seeking revenge is the most probable explanation is informed by your own prejudices, not the facts.

Indeed. This is precisely why this is a case of "correlation =/= causation".

Skeptic Ginger is relying on confirmation bias developed from her own biases to attempt to force a correlation into a cause. As of yet, there is no link between these two facts:

1) O'Reilly claims the ACLU is engaged in a War on Xmas

and

2) The ACLU was placed on a state-wide security concern map due to a mass mailing to public education institutes

There has been zero evidence presented that the two are linked. Again, even if 99.9999% of TN is overtly religious fundies, the only people that count in this discussion are the ones who were responsible for placing the ACLU on the map. I'm not anti-ACLU, and there's a chance I would have reacted the same way until it was verified that the letters did in fact originate from the ACLU.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 01:14 PM

Ignoring my point, which is that being labelled 'suspicious' doesn't mean anything.

Surely it means something, otherwise why would they do it?

"Hey, let's label this activity 'suspicious' even though that doesn't mean anything."

The State of Tennessee isn't going to be sending shadow ninja stalkers to watch the ACLU now. So what difference does it make?

At best it's an upsetting sort of political posturing aimed at sucking up to the state's dullards, at worst it's an attempt at intimidation. It could also be a mistake, at which point it would be very easy for Tennessee to just say that.

From the perspective of the fundamental basis of our Constitution, I cannot see any argument why this would be a good thing. Only those that elevate a particular religion over our nation of man-made laws will champion such behavior. The Constitution was forged to specifically deal with that attitude.

If you walk into a department store with a large oversize coat on, chances are private security will label you 'suspicious' and watch your every move on camera until you leave. Does this interfere with your shopping experience in any way?

It could. I have represented quite a few clients that such labeling served as a pretext for further harrassment.

Of course, it's rational for a business to watch someone with a large, oversized coat because they have an easy means to steal things. What was the rational purpose of similarly scrutinizing the ACLU?

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 01:17 PM

thaiboxerken

3rd January 2011, 01:18 PM

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 01:22 PM

Do we have other examples of mass mailings to public schools being labelled "suspicious?"

Surely the schools receive all sorts of offers at attempts at sales. If it's the act of mailing and not the nature of the source that merited the designation, surely we can point to such an instance.

Do we have mass mailings that weren't labeled suspicious?

You're asking me to prove a negative. We don't even have evidence that there have been any other mass mailings, so how can we prove that other mass mailings haven't been labeled suspicious? Let's start at step one: find evidence of other mass mailings on this level, with the same staff responsible for this decision and then we'll look into the labeling.

Checkmite's main point, I think, is that there simply is not enough evidence to start lambasting the guys who labeled the ACLU suspicious. I concur with this assessment. So far, at best, there has been nothing but confusing correlation and causation, along with righteous indignation that the ACLU was labeled without acknowledging that there is no knowledge of whether this was a one off example, or something that happens regularly in TN with regards to other similar incidents.

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 01:27 PM

It takes quite a bit of denial to pretend that being placed on a "terrorist and suspicious activity" watchlist doesn't mean that those who placed you there suspect you are a terrorist or doing suspicious activity related to terrorism.

No, not really. It's simply confirmation bias that results in accusations like this. I acknowledge that it was possibly an unwarranted label. However, we do not have all the facts in the case.

Nor are any of us responsible for the safety of an entire State. Now, while I realize that sounds like I'm all for free-ranging powers in defense of Terrorism, that's is not at all the case.

Labeling the ACLU suspicious might simply mean that it's put on the map and no action is taken other than that people in the center are looking to see if it fits in with any other pieces. If it doesn't, then it gets cleared off. That's SOP from a security standpoint. Anomalies are detected and noted, investigated, and either cleared or upgraded. That an anomaly was detected and noted does not, on it's own, indicate bias against the ACLU.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 01:34 PM

Do we have mass mailings that weren't labeled suspicious?

You're asking me to prove a negative. We don't even have evidence that there have been any other mass mailings, so how can we prove that other mass mailings haven't been labeled suspicious? Let's start at step one: find evidence of other mass mailings on this level, with the same staff responsible for this decision and then we'll look into the labeling.

No, not really. They put this stuff up on an interactive map. In theory it should be easy to show that this sort of thing is customary.

Here's the map:
http://tnfusion.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

I can't find a historical view, a logging of events.

Maybe "General Hate," or "Christian Identity?" Obviously it falls under the catch-all, "suspicious activity," but there's no explanation of what was suspicious. As I said, a list of previously described "suspicious activity" would go a long way to clearing up this mess.

The burden should be on Tennessee to positively explain why they're doing this. They should have to assure the country (as infringements on Constitutional rights are never a local matter) that there is a reason for this mistake/action.

So far all we have is the act of sending a mass mailing to a public school. I guess the organization that gets kids to sell summer sausage and cheese buckets for cheap prizes is similarly suspicious.

Checkmite's main point, I think, is that there simply is not enough evidence to start lambasting the guys who labeled the ACLU suspicious. I concur with this assessment. So far, at best, there has been nothing but confusing correlation and causation, along with righteous indignation that the ACLU was labeled without acknowledging that there is no knowledge of whether this was a one off example, or something that happens regularly in TN with regards to other similar incidents.

If it was a misunderstanding or normal operating procedure, it would be very easy for Tennessee to show that. Again, the burden needs to be on the state for justifying its actions especially when fundamental Constitutional rights are at issue.

But in general I have no problem waiting for more information. This hardly seems like an emergency.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 01:36 PM

thaiboxerken

3rd January 2011, 01:40 PM

No, not really.

Yes, really. You have to convince yourself that "suspicious activity" on a watchlist for "terrorism and suspicious activity" can mean anything. In context, it's easy to see that "suspicious activity" is activity related to terrorism and not activity related to baking cakes.

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 02:34 PM

Here's the map of "other suspicious activities" from Dec 1 to the present:

http://tnfusion.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

Keep messing with the dates and maybe we can find a similar incident.

ETA: Somehow searches aren't recorded when I link to them. It's pretty easy to do, though, if anyone's curious.

I haven't found an example of something that isn't criminal on it's face.

How about this one criticizing the FBI?
[WDSU.com] LOUISIANA - NOPD, FBI Draw Flak Over Ignored Terror Warnings

"New Orleans store owners and local tourists criticized on Wednesday law enforcement agencies for ignoring terror warnings that could have prevented a possible disaster in Jackson Square."

Read the full article:

http://www.wdsu.com/mostpopular/25310501/detail.html

There are several suspicious package items such as this:
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/sep/24/suspicious-package-investigation-ends-quietly-gold/
Collier County Sheriff's Bomb Squad and K-9 Units responded to a suspicious package Friday evening in Golden Gate Estates.

After examining the package, it was determined to not be an explosive device, Collier County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Michelle Batten said.

"I can tell you that we got a call at 6:45 p.m. regarding a suspicious package," Batten said. "It was a package that you would get in the mail."

Batten said the package was unexpected by the residents of the Indigo Lakes Circle area.

"It was cleared a few minutes ago," Batten said at about 9:35 p.m.

And there's a computer worm notice:
http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/230413,advanced-instant-messenger-threat-discovered.aspx

And this:
[Washington Post] TEXAS - FBI to probe panels that reviewed e-mails from alleged Fort Hood gunman

"FBI leaders announced Tuesday that they are launching an independent investigation into the policies and actions of two bureau task forces that reviewed e-mails from the alleged Fort Hood shooter in the months before the Nov. 5 massacre at the Army base."

Read the full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120801731.html?hpid=topnews

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 02:47 PM

How about this one criticizing the FBI?

There are several suspicious package items such as this:

And there's a computer worm notice:
http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/230413,advanced-instant-messenger-threat-discovered.aspx

And this:

I'm not sure I follow.

We have a situation where someone wanting to report suspicious activity was ignored, suspicious packages (the potential danger of which is obvious), a computer worm which does actual harm, and e-mails relating to the Ft. Hood gunman.

In all of these situations the harm/crime is obvious on its face. What was the threat caused by the ACLU's mailings?

In the least it's not at all clear what was threatening about the mailing. The burden is on the state to explain why it was categorized along with information about actual terrorist acts and packages left in an unusual manner.

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 03:03 PM

RidleyReport

3rd January 2011, 03:50 PM

that's weird because the ACLU's ally the SPLC is ITSELF running around labeling people terrorist, or at least implying it.

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 03:51 PM

I'm not sure I follow.

We have a situation where someone wanting to report suspicious activity was ignored, suspicious packages (the potential danger of which is obvious), a computer worm which does actual harm, and e-mails relating to the Ft. Hood gunman.

In all of these situations the harm/crime is obvious on its face. What was the threat caused by the ACLU's mailings?

In the least it's not at all clear what was threatening about the mailing. The burden is on the state to explain why it was categorized along with information about actual terrorist acts and packages left in an unusual manner.

"Suspicious" packages that turned out upon investigation to be absolutely nothing were reported on the site.

Computer worms are released every damned day.

Business leaders complaining is perfectly legal.

What nobody has established is that the ACLU contacting every school to remind them to obey the law is somehow a standard practice. Contacting the school board itself is standard practice, but every administrator? That seems unusual to me, but if anyone can demonstrate otherwise, go for it.

So, what we have here is other innocuous events being listed. If you review the lists, many are clearly miscategorized. Several, as I've noted, are not in the least bit interesting.

It's a mountain in a teacup.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 04:27 PM

"Suspicious" packages that turned out upon investigation to be absolutely nothing were reported on the site.

Right, but they need to be investigated. That alert shows that terrorism/law enforcement officials were deployed to look into a potential bomb.

Computer worms are released every damned day.

Women are beaten and children abused everyday. The repetition does not lower the illegality.

Not to mention that we've recently been increasing the cyber-terrorism protection budget. An increased focused on computer viruses and other nasties as an issue of global terrorism would seem likely to result in that kind of identification.

Business leaders complaining is perfectly legal.

Yes, but they're complaining about something very specific, here, failure to investigate reports about potential terrorism. Surely you can see why that would be relevant to the terrorism task force, or whatever this thing is called.

I should also point out that that article was the result of clicking on the link for more information. It took you to a news story about the result of the police involvement (same is true for all of them). Thus, they will all be in the past tense. The alert wasn't issued after the packages turned out to not be bombs or whatever, that's just the state of things when the newspapers report.

What nobody has established is that the ACLU contacting every school to remind them to obey the law is somehow a standard practice. Contacting the school board itself is standard practice, but every administrator? That seems unusual to me, but if anyone can demonstrate otherwise, go for it.

Whether it's usual or not, I still fail to see even the remotest connection to terrorism or other illegal acts. This is neither an illegal act in itself nor an issue relating to the operation of the anti-terrorist forces. Everything you listed falls into one of those categories.

So, what we have here is other innocuous events being listed. If you review the lists, many are clearly miscategorized. Several, as I've noted, are not in the least bit interesting.

It's a mountain in a teacup.

No, we have a number of events that turned out to be innocuous, but when, for example, police have to go investigate a suspicious package, it's fairly obvious why a record would be kept of that situation regardless of the result.

I still don't understand what was illegal and/or relevant to our anti-terrorism mechanisms about the mailing.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 04:38 PM

TW: Perhaps it's my Military background and the anti-terrorism training I received, but I can easily see how a mass mailing is "suspicious". One of the biggest sections of the training was/is recognizing suspicious packages/envelopes. Looking for simple things such as return addresses matching postmarks, etc. Given the large number of envelopes, given that it's not impossible for biological weapons to be included in a plain envelope, I can see how a mass mailing from an institution could be labeled suspicious. As I've stated, I probably would label it suspicious until I'd verified there was nothing contained inside the envelopes (other than the letter), that the envelopes all had the same return address and postmark, etc.

Sure, if this is something that happens regularly when mass mailings occur, then it's obviously not a big deal. I'm simply pointing out that no previous mass mailing has triggered this mechanism. Surely this wasn't the first in Tennessee history, and the database is nationwide---hell, worldwide if you click the options. I'd be curious if anyone can find a mass-mailing that was recorded just because it was a mass mailing, not because something suspicious about the letters themselves was found (covered in white powder).

Thus, some explanation is required.

I don't want to brush this aside with a "no harm, no foul" mentality, because I know that slippery slope argument that follows. But there was nothing unconstitutional about labeling the ACLU mailing as a suspicious activity. Sorry, but there's nothing criminal associated with the label. In fact, due process would have exonerated the ACLU (as it did). In the meantime, the guys in charge of monitoring threats in TN have a fine line to walk.

It depends on why it was labeled such. If it was a result of the act of mailing a lot of letters to a school, then it's obviously not a big deal nor does it threaten any Constitutional rights.

If, however, the designation was based on the content of the letters, then there's a major speech issue. This is, again, why we need more information. The state needs to explain itself. They need to prove to us that this isn't aimed at the content of the letters, it should not be assumed that they're behaving in good faith.

What if this had been a mass anthrax mailing? Or some other form of biological warfare? And the director of the center hadn't labeled the mass-mailing suspicious (at the least)? There would be hell to pay in the public opinion.

Then there would be more than suspicious activity. That statement could be made about every letter ever mailed, not just mass mailings.

Seems to me this is a case of "can't win for losing" when really, the label "suspicious" is perhaps walking that fine line between doing too much and not doing anything.

People here are jumping the gun and equating suspicious directly with terrorism. But that's not what the label signifies. I do believe the label is more benign, as in: I'm a cop on a beat, I see someone come running around a corner. I'm going to label that suspicious until I've verified that it's simply Joe Blow trying to catch the bus. Now, that example is a little different in that given situational awareness, I could probably make that distinction in a pretty rapid timeframe. What we're talking about in TN isn't quite that simple a situation. There are multiple sites involved, across an entire County/State. A little more in depth investigation is perhaps warranted. Note that the investigation is not necessarily directed at the ACLU, but at the mailing (if that distinction makes sense).

Look at the sorts of things that are designated suspicious activities. In addition to what UY listed, all of which have obvious legal and anti-terrorism ramifications, in the last six months in Tennessee, there was about the discovery of a human skull, the FBI seizing business records, a father and daughter found dead, a $12 million Ponzi scheme uncovered, a woman trying to ram her car into jail, a bust of a human trafficking scheme and so on.

I still have no idea what makes this ACLU mailing worthy of note save for its content. When someone reports a suspicious package, they mean, "I'm worried this is a bomb."

If there was something about the letters themselves, like white powder falling off of them, then it makes sense. If all mass mailings to schools are similarly scrutinized, it makes sense. I've seen no explanation, however, that even attempts to justify this on the merits.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 04:46 PM

I don't. [believe evidence has been presented] It's a bunch of speculation. You have previously complained that people do not carefully read your posts and you've denied your posts are unclear. And here you are making the same mistake trying to communicate your position as Checkmite has made, after I pointed out to him why his post contained a major error. This is not just being pedantic, it is about something critical to the scientific process and critical to understanding concepts necessary for critical thinking. That is, the difference between an hypothesis, evidence and a conclusion, and, how scientific or rational conclusions fall into a continuum of certainty.

I'll not fill this post with a condescending quote of the various definitions of the concepts here. I'll assume you really do know the difference between evidence and a conclusion. Yet your post indicates you don't seem to understand that O'Reilly is evidence, his opinions are evidence, that his opinions reflect a much broader public opinion is evidence.

Whether or not you agree with what degree of certainty that evidence supports is a separate issue from the fact that O'Reilly calling the ACLU a terrorist organization is evidence.

If you understood those concepts you should be presenting some evidence supporting your hypothesis that sending letters to a couple hundred schools by anyone is a worrisome event. You can hypothesize it is worrisome. Checkmite hypothesized that the letters could have contained powder or some other problem unrelated to who sent them.

Hypotheses are not evidence. O'Reilly directly saying the ACLU is a terrorist organization is not an hypothesis and it is not a conclusion, it is evidence.

You hypothesized the letters were unusual. Then when given evidence the ACLU writes lots of letters and sends many letters to schools, you tried to claim the number of letters being sent directly to the schools was unusual.

So your hypothesis is that an organization which normally sends letters to schools might get put on a terrorism news event list because they sent more letters to more schools this time? Seriously, that is your hypothesis?

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 04:52 PM

"Suspicious" packages that turned out upon investigation to be absolutely nothing were reported on the site.
...This is the same unsupported hypothesis that was already presented. It could have been suspicious IF ....

The trouble here is, the state never cited any such excuse and one would think they would have when they received complaints about the listing. Instead they admitted they could not explain why they put the event on the map.

OTOH, admitting someone in the office doesn't like the politics of the ACLU was not something the state could readily admit occurred. At least one can see why they might not want to admit it.

Checkmite

3rd January 2011, 05:11 PM

Surely it means something, otherwise why would they do it?

"Hey, let's label this activity 'suspicious' even though that doesn't mean anything."

Hmm, you are right; that is badly written. I should elaborate that it's meaningful only to law enforcement personnel actively doing their jobs - 'suspicious activity' is merely LE-speak for 'follow up on/keep an eye on this'.

To anybody else, in any capacity, the term is meaningless. "Suspicious" isn't a legal term or state. Police aren't required to notify anyone who they consider suspicious. It's entirely possible that anyone reading this thread may at some point in their life have been considered suspicious by the police and may never have been aware of it because the police never found a need to interact with them in any way. There's really no grounds for outrage over this unless one feels that ACLU chapters and their activities should for some reason be exempt from ever being looked at by law enforcement; nobody has a Constitutional right to never be considered suspicious by the police or other agencies.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 05:22 PM

Hmm, you are right; that is badly written. I should elaborate that it's meaningful only to law enforcement personnel actively doing their jobs - 'suspicious activity' is merely LE-speak for 'follow up on/keep an eye on this'.

To anybody else, in any capacity, the term is meaningless. "Suspicious" isn't a legal term or state. Police aren't required to notify anyone who they consider suspicious. It's entirely possible that anyone reading this thread may at some point in their life have been considered suspicious by the police and may never have been aware of it because the police never found a need to interact with them in any way. There's really no grounds for outrage over this unless one feels that ACLU chapters and their activities should for some reason be exempt from ever being looked at by law enforcement; nobody has a Constitutional right to never be considered suspicious by the police or other agencies.

Sure, but in this particular instance the suspicion is publicized. Given that every example of past publications involve very obvious (potential) criminal activity or law enforcement responses to very obvious (potential) criminal activity, I continue to be curious as to why this action by the ACLU was singled out.

If they can show this had nothing to do with the content of the mailing, then there's no issue.

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 05:29 PM

Sure, but in this particular instance the suspicion is publicized. Given that every example of past publications involve very obvious (potential) criminal activity or law enforcement responses to very obvious (potential) criminal activity, I continue to be curious as to why this action by the ACLU was singled out.

If they can show this had nothing to do with the content of the mailing, then there's no issue.

Um, I think the burden of proof lies the other way. You're accusing the TN authorities of acting improperly, you need to properly evidence that. So far we're at an impasse. We don't have any other mass mailings on the map, but at the same time, we don't have evidence that other mass mailings occurred on this scale in the time frame analyzed.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 05:40 PM

Um, I think the burden of proof lies the other way. You're accusing the TN authorities of acting improperly, you need to properly evidence that. So far we're at an impasse. We don't have any other mass mailings on the map, but at the same time, we don't have evidence that other mass mailings occurred on this scale in the time frame analyzed.

I disagree with you in general. Part of the problem with the growing national security apparatus is the shifting of the burden onto the population, requiring justifications if their freedoms to the government. This runs rather contrary to the basic point of the Constitution.

On the specific matter, however, it's even more clear. When first amendment rights are infringed by the state, strict scrutiny kicks in. It's then the governments job to show a compelling governmental interest.

Thus, the burden is on the state to either justify their actions based on Constitutional restrictions or show that this wasn't an issue of speech. They have the burden.

Checkmite

3rd January 2011, 05:53 PM

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 05:58 PM

Right, but they need to be investigated. That alert shows that terrorism/law enforcement officials were deployed to look into a potential bomb.
What use is that?

Women are beaten and children abused everyday. The repetition does not lower the illegality.
And neither have any significant bearing on terrorism. But only one was reported. Why? Who the **** knows? Is it because O'Reilly calls hackers terrorists?

Yes, but they're complaining about something very specific, here, failure to investigate reports about potential terrorism. Surely you can see why that would be relevant to the terrorism task force, or whatever this thing is called.
People complain all the time. Should this forum be listed?

What you get, because you're smart, but refuse to admit is that the site is a mishmash of questionable information that is often miscategorized. Only in the case of the ACLU are you up in arms. You, of course, will continue down this road because you're committed to it. Have fun. Call me to let me know you got there safely.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 05:59 PM

That kind of hyperbole is the only reason we're even still discussing this. No person's constitutional rights have been infringed or even threatened in this case. As I said, there is no constitutional right to not have your public activities looked at by the police.

Again, that's a conclusion not currently supported by the facts. We don't know why this was done. It could be some political gambit, it could an attempt at intimidation, it could be a mistake, it could be a very legitimate reaction. Because fundamental rights are potentially at issue, however, they need to explain themselves.

Any time the state begins scrutinizing an organization based on content of speech, the government must explain its compelling state interest. If the speech is from a hate group or expressing terrorist plans, the state interest of security obviously justifies the close monitoring of those groups.

I see no compelling state interest in denying an organization the ability to send out mailings to schools informing them of the state of Constitutional law. Thus, there better be a good non-content based explanation for the state action.

If there is one, then there's no problem. All they have to do is explain themselves.

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 06:05 PM

You have previously complained that people do not carefully read your posts
Please stop stalking me and bringing up other threads.

Whether or not you agree with what degree of certainty that evidence supports is a separate issue from the fact that O'Reilly calling the ACLU a terrorist organization is evidence.
It's a fact. It only becomes evidence when you can link it in a chain. So far, you've failed miserably.

If you understood those concepts you should be presenting some evidence supporting your hypothesis that sending letters to a couple hundred schools by anyone is a worrisome event. You can hypothesize it is worrisome.
Worrisome is your word. Unusual was my word.

You hypothesized the letters were unusual. Then when given evidence the ACLU writes lots of letters and sends many letters to schools, you tried to claim the number of letters being sent directly to the schools was unusual.
Please do not lie. From the very outset I challenged you to present evidence of a mass mailing reminding schools to follow the law. In response you presented evidence of letters to the school board. Now you're pretending I moved the goal posts when in fact it was you who muffed the kick.

So your hypothesis is that an organization which normally sends letters to schools might get put on a terrorism news event list because they sent more letters to more schools this time? Seriously, that is your hypothesis?
I have no hypothesis. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to form a conclusion based on the very small amount of information available.

You still didn't answer my question:
Tell me, do you regularly get letters from groups telling you to follow the law regarding your alleged medical practice? Might you consider such a benign letter a wolf in sheep's clothing?

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 06:09 PM

Again, that's a conclusion not currently supported by the facts. We don't know why this was done. It could be some political gambit, it could an attempt at intimidation, it could be a mistake, it could be a very legitimate reaction. Because fundamental rights are potentially at issue, however, they need to explain themselves.

Any time the state begins scrutinizing an organization based on content of speech, the government must explain its compelling state interest. If the speech is from a hate group or expressing terrorist plans, the state interest of security obviously justifies the close monitoring of those groups.

I see no compelling state interest in denying an organization the ability to send out mailings to schools informing them of the state of Constitutional law. Thus, there better be a good non-content based explanation for the state action.

If there is one, then there's no problem. All they have to do is explain themselves.

Note the contradiction in your post? We don't know why it was done, the position you have defaulted to is that it was based on the content of the letter. This is a conclusion that has not yet been evidenced.

Actually, that's what I've been stating the past few posts of mine.

We don't know why it happened. Jumping to the conclusion that this is a violation of free speech based on the content of the letters is a false conclusion based on your own biases, not the evidence as has been presented.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 06:11 PM

What use is that?

Currently, someone named Allison Daugherty is missing in Tennessee. There is an alert on the map. There is also no detailed information. Just this alert:

http://tnfusion.globalincidentmap.com/eventdetail.php?ID=55950

Maybe it's innocuous. Maybe she'll just be found somewhere perfectly safe. Tomorrow the site will updated with a "detail" that says as much.

Right now, however, it's anything but certain that this girl/woman isn't being harmed.

Thus, when someone calls in a suspicious package, an alert is issued on that map so other law enforcement people around the world are immediately given the information. The map is later updated with the result.

I'd imagine the point is so that people who ask, "What happened to Allison Daugherty," have an answer.

Likewise, after the package turns out to be nothing serious, the website is updated. That doesn't mean the initial alert wasn't justifiably made.

And neither have any significant bearing on terrorism. But only one was reported. Why? Who the **** knows? Is it because O'Reilly calls hackers terrorists?

No, it's because we've invested a substantial sum of money in investigating "cyber terrorism." Many folks in the intelligence community say we need to invest more.

The typical "worm" is like the package: could be incredibly dangerous or originating from a terrorist group. Thus, investigation by anti-terrorism personnell is undertaken and recorded on that site.

People complain all the time. Should this forum be listed?

If you call them up and report a crime with some specificity, chances are it will be.

If you call them up and give them credible evidence about, say, a forum poster launching some kind of attack, they don't investigate, then something bad happens. I'd imagine your complaints would be publicized widely.

What you get, because you're smart, but refuse to admit is that the site is a mishmash of questionable information that is often miscategorized. Only in the case of the ACLU are you up in arms. You, of course, will continue down this road because you're committed to it. Have fun. Call me to let me know you got there safely.

Uh, ok. Again, all the things you mentioned were obviously related to terrorism or crime. I still don't understand what about this mailing makes related to terrorism or crime. If it's just the "mass" nature of the mailing, why aren't there any others on that site?

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 06:43 PM

Uh, ok. Again, all the things you mentioned were obviously related to terrorism or crime. I still don't understand what about this mailing makes related to terrorism or crime. If it's just the "mass" nature of the mailing, why aren't there any others on that site?
The impetus behind 9/11 was religion and politics. What do you think that letter was about? Two percent versus 1% milk?

You're better than this.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 07:02 PM

The impetus behind 9/11 was religion and politics. What do you think that letter was about? Two percent versus 1% milk?

You're better than this.

Well, I'm just going to assume you want to stop this conversation with a joke. Fine with me. I have nothing more to add.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 07:06 PM

Note the contradiction in your post? We don't know why it was done, the position you have defaulted to is that it was based on the content of the letter. This is a conclusion that has not yet been evidenced.

Actually, that's what I've been stating the past few posts of mine.

We don't know why it happened. Jumping to the conclusion that this is a violation of free speech based on the content of the letters is a false conclusion based on your own biases, not the evidence as has been presented.

How is that a contradiction? I'm saying I don't know what went on, but special attention needs to be paid because of the potential Constitutional issues.

I then listed the facts that make it appear that something odd has happened. That's not a conclusion that something did happen, just an illustration of why this is a particularly sensitive issue.

It can all easily been settled with an explanation from Tennessee.

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 07:20 PM

How is that a contradiction? I'm saying I don't know what went on, but special attention needs to be paid because of the potential Constitutional issues. You're saying you don't know what went on, and then presenting the conclusion that what happened is a constitutional issue. You don't see a jump in logic here? Come now, TW, you're better than this.

I then listed the facts that make it appear that something odd has happened. That's not a conclusion that something did happen, just an illustration of why this is a particularly sensitive issue.Correlation =/= causation. And any conclusions or assumptions at this point are based on speculation based on biases, not evidence. There is zero evidence that this is a constitutional issue at this time.

It can all easily been settled with an explanation from Tennessee.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we should blow it out of proportion while we wait.

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 07:28 PM

Well, I'm just going to assume you want to stop this conversation with a joke. Fine with me. I have nothing more to add.

There's no joke, and you know it. At the broadest level every school in the district received a letter advising them to follow the law regarding a religious issue. Forget that it was the ACLU. You don't think that's it's worth tossing in the heap of **** on that site, which includes "somebody got a large envelope and thought something was wrong, but it was just an ordinary envelope" stories?

The only reason not to put it there, which is what I said at the very start, is that it was the ACLU. Go ahead and pretend that this is entirely implausible while defending the notion that "O'Reilly fans dunnit.

quixotecoyote

3rd January 2011, 07:31 PM

There's no joke, and you know it. At the broadest level every school in the district received a letter advising them to follow the law regarding a religious issue. Forget that it was the ACLU. You don't think that's it's worth tossing in the heap of **** on that site, which includes "somebody got a large envelope and thought something was wrong, but it was just an ordinary envelope" stories?

And thought what might be wrong, Yimmy?

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 07:34 PM

You're saying you don't know what went on, and then presenting the conclusion that what happened is a constitutional issue. You don't see a jump in logic here? Come now, TW, you're better than this.

You cited your expertise in the military earlier, let me cite mine as an attorney. When state action potentially infringes on fundamental Constitutional rights, the law requires enhanced, strict scrutiny. You could call this a legal version of placing someone under suspicion.

Either this state action affects the ACLU's First Amendment rights or it doesn't. If it does, suspicion was based on content, then the state has a great deal of work to justify its actions. If it doesn't it needs to say so to obviate the need and expense of a lawsuit.

I don't know any clearer way of stating this. I do not know the conclusion, but given the sensitive ground on which this action treads, strict scrutiny is required.

Correlation =/= causation. And any conclusions or assumptions at this point are based on speculation based on biases, not evidence. There is zero evidence that this is a constitutional issue at this time.

Yes, but the law demands that the state prove this. That's all I've said. The facts are enough to warrant an explanation.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should blow it out of proportion while we wait.

Ok. Do you think I've done that?

I've listed the facts that establish a low burden of probable cause that something is amiss. It's as least as possible as not that the ACLU was scrutinized because of the content of the mailings. There is no evidence to indicate that mass mailings are regularly treated this way.

Thus, strict scrutiny takes over. There's a reason that legal designation exists, and it's because potential infringements of fundamental Consitutional rights are treated very seriously.

This merely establishes the position that this shouldn't be swept under the rug. There is something to see here. What that is will depend on how Tennessee answers.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 07:37 PM

There's no joke, and you know it. At the broadest level every school in the district received a letter advising them to follow the law regarding a religious issue.

What does that have to do with Al Qaeda. Are all Church mailings being put on the suspicious list?

Since this thread is replete with several posters passively aggressively telling me "I'm better than this," let me respond by saying, come on, you're better than this.

Al Qaeda was not watched because they were religious.

Forget that it was the ACLU. You don't think that's it's worth tossing in the heap of **** on that site, which includes "somebody got a large envelope and thought something was wrong, but it was just an ordinary envelope" stories?

Yes. All of those stories have an explanation for the suspicion. I'm waiting to hear what it is in this case.

The only reason not to put it there, which is what I said at the very start, is that it was the ACLU. Go ahead and pretend that this is entirely implausible while defending the notion that "O'Reilly fans dunnit.

Huh? You know what arroused suspicion? Please, I'd love to hear it.

White powder? Ticking? What was it?

Checkmite

3rd January 2011, 07:43 PM

You cited your expertise in the military earlier, let me cite mine as an attorney. When state action potentially infringes on fundamental Constitutional rights, the law requires enhanced, strict scrutiny. You could call this a legal version of placing someone under suspicion.

I'm sorry - I get that you're an attorney, but I'm not convinced you actually know what you're talking about in this case. I'd like you to cite some kind of law that requires state law enforcement agencies to justify merely being suspicious of anyone to anyone. Arrest - yeah. But nobody was arrested here. The ACLU's rights as an organization were not interfered with in any way. I think you're arguing the way you think things ought to be as opposed to the way they really are.

Are you familiar with "intimidation of a public official" laws?

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 08:04 PM

TW: Perhaps it's my Military background and the anti-terrorism training I received, but I can easily see how a mass mailing is "suspicious". Until one checks and finds out it was a routine letter from the ACLU.

Think about it. In order to list the ACLU's "mass mailing" as you are bizarrely trying to portray it, as being from the ACLU, someone at the state office had to have checked on the letters. That is unless you are suggesting a "mass mailing" which appeared suspicious enough to be listed on the state's terrorism map was not investigated. :rolleyes:

This contortion to avoid the obvious is getting very very contorted.

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 08:06 PM

Until one checks and finds out it was a routine letter from the ACLU.
Assuming facts not in evidence. Show us where the ACLU routinely sends out mass mailings to individual schools.

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 08:10 PM

Until one checks and finds out it was a routine letter from the ACLU.

Think about it. In order to list the ACLU's "mass mailing" as you are bizarrely trying to portray it, as being from the ACLU, someone at the state office had to have checked on the letters. That is unless you are suggesting a "mass mailing" which appeared suspicious enough to be listed on the state's terrorism map was not investigated. :rolleyes:

This contortion to avoid the obvious is getting very very contorted.

How long was it on the map, SG? You do realize these things take time to be investigated and cleared, right?

You are still doing nothing more than speculating that the content of the letter is what garnered attention, not the mass mailing itself. TraneWreck is doing the same thing with his arguments. This is crucial. There has been no evidence of a link between these two elements, and yet you and he both insist there is one. Well, present the evidence.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 08:11 PM

Um, I think the burden of proof lies the other way. You're accusing the TN authorities of acting improperly, you need to properly evidence that. So far we're at an impasse. We don't have any other mass mailings on the map, but at the same time, we don't have evidence that other mass mailings occurred on this scale in the time frame analyzed.I do believe their own retraction and what appears to be embarrassment is evidence the listing on the map was indeed inappropriate.

You all are forgetting the state had the option of explaining themselves and instead they took the listing down. This map was not some confidential message board law enforcement used. It didn't contain listings that couldn't be discussed further as to why the incidents were listed.

If it was "mass mailings" :rolleyes: they had no reason not to say so. If they were trying to keep it secret they were observing "mass mailings" why put it on the PUBLIC map?

This contorted hypothesis continues to bend in ever so strange apologetic ways.

TraneWreck

3rd January 2011, 08:11 PM

I'm sorry - I get that you're an attorney, but I'm not convinced you actually know what you're talking about in this case. I'd like you to cite some kind of law that requires state law enforcement agencies to justify merely being suspicious of anyone to anyone. Arrest - yeah. But nobody was arrested here. The ACLU's rights as an organization were not interfered with in any way. I think you're arguing the way you think things ought to be as opposed to the way they really are.

Are you familiar with "intimidation of a public official" laws?

When state action is taken that infringes on freedom of speech, strict scrutiny kicks in. If the ACLU was put on that suspicious list because of the content of the mailings, their freedoms are being affected. At this point it isn't a major infringement, but it can (and likely will) have a chilling affect on their future actions.

Lamont v. Postmaster General dealt with a very similar type of content-based intimidation, for lack of a better word, from the state. In Lamont, an Act required recipients of "political propaganda" to affirmatively consent to receiving those mailings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General

The state made a similar claim to the one you're making: no right was infringed by merely having people declare that they want to receive propaganda. There was no indication that further action by the government would be taken, but the very nature of requiring positive assent was ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment because of that "chilling effect."

Likewise, publishing an organization's name on a "suspicion" list for the purpose of inter-agency law enforcement communication has a chilling affect on speech. The ACLU has to wonder what, specifically, aroused the suspicion. They will have to operate with the perpetual question of what that means. Is some case being built against them, what's going on? Such intimidation, no matter how mild, has a deterrent effect on free speech even if there's no specific law prohibiting it.

There are literally hundreds of cases involving this legal concept, you're welcome to read them looking for more analagous fact patterns, but I'm not going to write a brief on the issue.

Because content based censorship, intimidation, and even vague "chilling effects" have been ruled unconstitutional based on the strict scrutiny standard, it is my legal opinion that if the ACLU was placed on that list because of the content of the mailings, that would be an unconstitutional act by the state.

Now, the odd particulars of the case make it very reasonable to suspect that this is what occurred (not that "reasonable" does not mean "certain"). It is therefore the job of the state to show that it didn't occur, that this had nothing to do with content, but was a result of some powder or some unusual physical or procedural feature of the mailing that triggered the alert.

I think we can be reasonably certain that the ACLU is contemplating a lawsuit at this very moment, so it would be nice if Tennessee just explained themselves before a ton of money is wasted in litigation. It's their Constitutionally mandated duty to do so.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 09:25 PM

How long was it on the map, SG? You do realize these things take time to be investigated and cleared, right?

You are still doing nothing more than speculating that the content of the letter is what garnered attention, not the mass mailing itself. TraneWreck is doing the same thing with his arguments. This is crucial. There has been no evidence of a link between these two elements, and yet you and he both insist there is one. Well, present the evidence.

Let's go back to the beginning here. It's amazing how this argument has drifted and become more and more full of straw and further away from the actual facts.

Someone in the TN state office puts the ACLU letter mailings on the map.
A reaction to the listing comes from people concerned about why the state is calling the ACLU's letters worthy of being on a terrorist incident/news map.
The state back peddles and says it was really just a news event, they are not saying the ACLU is a terrorist organization.
The map does not list other benign news events unrelated to terrorism.

I don't see that anyone has refuted those facts.

There have been two hypotheses generated to explain the ACLU letters to multiple schools ending up on the map.

1) One or more persons responsible for the map viewed the ACLU letter as an affront to their beliefs or something to that effect and saw the letters as belonging on the map. It's likely this was not high up in the state office and higher up officials were not in agreement with the lower down the chain employee.

2) There was some other reason unrelated to the content of the letter or the nature of the ACLU in as much as anyone seeing them as a terror related group. Suggestions have been powder or something else suspicious in the letters, "mass mailings", more letters than usual for the ACLU, what ever,

There is evidence many people believe the ACLU is a terrorist group. Bill O'Reilly said this publicly and he has a lot of people who agree with his views.

There is no evidence from the state for any thing unusual about the letters or the number of them which led to the map listing.

I have only said that hypothesis one is more consistent with the evidence. Of course it is speculating. I have said that about 5 times now. But it is speculating based on the evidence we do have, not based on nothing or "pure speculating" as it has been described.

There is nothing really supporting hypothesis 2. The state put the event on the map. Your suggestion it takes time to investigate would be something that was done before the mailing was put on the map. Do you see other things on the map that were inexplicable as this one that perhaps some investigation was ongoing? No. There is nothing like that on the map.

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 09:27 PM

The map does not list other benign news events unrelated to terrorism.
Except that it does. I've shown that already.

I don't see that anyone has refuted those facts.
LOL! Can't argue with somebody who doesn't read the thread.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 09:53 PM

Here's more evidence Fox News and O'Reilly regularly call the ACLU a terrorist group:

Bill O'Reilly expose: ACLU aiding Al Qaeda terrorism with 'subversive activity' Video (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-dallas/bill-o-reilly-expose-aclu-aiding-al-qaeda-terrorism-with-subversive-activity-video)

O'Reilly: "ACLU and the judges who side with them are terror allies" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200507260002)

Hawking his new book, Newsweek's Meacham joined O'Reilly's ACLU-bashing (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604120007)

O'Reilly promised to investigate ACLU donors because "[n]o organization enables terrorism as much as the ACLU" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200508080001)

O'Reilly on ACLU: "I think they're a terrorist group. ... I think they're terrorists" (http://mediamatters.org/research/200503030007)

Fox News Removes Innocence from ACLU Stance on Gitmo Detainees?
Acd4BnOhaFA

O'Reilly falsely accused ACLU of remaining silent on government check of Wurzelbacher's records (http://mediamatters.org/research/200811100010)

And a bit of evidence there was not a lot of supervision or guidelines about what should be put on the map:
Weinberg said there "seems to be no oversight on what's posted on these maps and how it's categorized." (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/dec/22/aclu-bristles-over-terror-list/)

Uncayimmy

3rd January 2011, 10:16 PM

Here's more evidence Fox News and O'Reilly regularly call the ACLU a terrorist group:

And here's the evidence that this is why the event was listed.

BobTheDonkey

3rd January 2011, 10:57 PM

Checkmite

3rd January 2011, 11:45 PM

Likewise, publishing an organization's name on a "suspicion" list for the purpose of inter-agency law enforcement communication has a chilling affect on speech. The ACLU has to wonder what, specifically, aroused the suspicion. They will have to operate with the perpetual question of what that means. Is some case being built against them, what's going on? Such intimidation, no matter how mild, has a deterrent effect on free speech even if there's no specific law prohibiting it.

I do not believe the situation is analogous as you claim it is, and I don't think a judge would see it that way either (purely speculative on my part). One could assert that a visit from a police officer asking about where a person was on such-and-such a day and time constitutes "intimidation" or might have a "chilling effect" on one's behavior. But to prohibit police from performing investigations or deciding for internal procedural purposes which people or incidents are worth investigating (i.e., categorizing them as suspicious) is to cripple their capacity to do their job.

The thing here is, we're not dealing with door-to-door flyers or public posters. The letters were correspondence sent directly and pointedly to government offices and government officials. It's silly to insist that the government not be allowed to take note of or scrutinize information contained within them.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd January 2011, 11:52 PM

So the map is run by O'Reilly and/or Fox?So Fox has no followers in Tennessee who reflect the same sentiments?

How many people watch Fox news and or O'Reilly that have similar views as those expressed on Fox? 35-45% of the population?

You guys are trying really hard to deny a large proportion of the population hold the same views as Fox and O'Reilly. Even if it is 30% of the US adult population, that is potentially 30% of the people working at the TN office that maintains the terrorism map.

BobTheDonkey

4th January 2011, 01:48 AM

So Fox has no followers in Tennessee who reflect the same sentiments?

How many people watch Fox news and or O'Reilly that have similar views as those expressed on Fox? 35-45% of the population? So, the map is populated by voting? Again, as I've said a few times before, the demographic of TN has no bearing on this issue. There was a handful of people responsible for the decision. 99.999999% of the State could be religious fundie fruitcakes of the Fred Phelps kind and it still wouldn't be more than just speculation as there is no evidence that the guy who pulled the trigger and put the ACLU on the map did so for the reasons you claim.

You guys are trying really hard to deny a large proportion of the population hold the same views as Fox and O'Reilly. Even if it is 30% of the US adult population, that is potentially 30% of the people working at the TN office that maintains the terrorism map.
No. No, no no no no. If the office has, let's say, 10 people in it, the demographic of the State of TN has little to nothing to do with those 10 people. All 10 could be Fred Phelp's kids or all 10 could be Randi's personal pupils. The demographic of the larger picture is not necessarily sampled in the office because a) they weren't picked from the population at random and b) even if they were picked from the population at random, you're conflating large numbers with small and requiring it to be impossible for a statistical outlier to happen with an incredibly small sample size. It's like saying that since NY is 51% female (or whatever the ratio is), my office should be 51% female. It's not. And it's not because my office is a statistical outlier. It's because small samples of a handpicked portion of the population are not necessarily reflective of the entire population.

Or claiming that since world's population is mostly asian, I would expect to find the same demographic in an igloo in Alaska's northern wilderness.

So, here we go again on this little merry go round.

Skeptic Ginger, you have again and again conflated speculation with evidence. At no point have you provided evidence that O'Reilly's comments are believed by the person who put the ACLU on the map. And, really, that's the only person who's actions count.

Not what the entire rest of the population of the World believes. The opinions of the entire rest of the world has no bearing on why the ACLU was put on the map. The only opinion that counts is that of whoever is responsible for the ACLU being put on the map.

TraneWreck

4th January 2011, 06:46 AM

I do not believe the situation is analogous as you claim it is, and I don't think a judge would see it that way either (purely speculative on my part). One could assert that a visit from a police officer asking about where a person was on such-and-such a day and time constitutes "intimidation" or might have a "chilling effect" on one's behavior. But to prohibit police from performing investigations or deciding for internal procedural purposes which people or incidents are worth investigating (i.e., categorizing them as suspicious) is to cripple their capacity to do their job.

You're conflating a number of issues here.

There is nothing wrong with investigating someone because you suspect they've committed a crime. Investigating them because they're black or because they're a woman or because they wrote a blog post the state doesn't agree with, however, is not appropriate.

THe burden is on the state to show that there is a legitimate, non-content based reason for the designation. If they have one, and it's plausible that they do, they just need to express it: the envelope had white powder on it, it was ticking.

Alternatively, they can base it on the content if it was a threat or some other category of non-protected speech.

The legal precedent clearly establishes the principle that the state need not directly prohibit or regulate speech for their actions to violate First Amendment protections. If the state action has a chilling effect on speech, and having a group declared "suspicious" because of content would most certainly have that effect, then they're in violation.

If someone called the office and said, "I got this letter from the ACLU I'm worried there's (a bomb)(anthrax)(...) inside," and they put that alert up on the website while they went to investigate, they merely need to update the page to say nothing came of the report.

If they have a legitimate reason for doing what they did, Tennessee merely needs to say so. It shouldn't be hard to prove.

The thing here is, we're not dealing with door-to-door flyers or public posters. The letters were correspondence sent directly and pointedly to government offices and government officials. It's silly to insist that the government not be allowed to take note of or scrutinize information contained within them.

Sure, they can look into it. They can even declare it "suspicious," but they need to explain why. If it's content based it's a violation of the First Amendment, if it's not content based it shouldn't be hard to say so.

Again, the standard is "compelling government interest." The burden is on them to explain what that is.

Emet

4th January 2011, 09:28 AM

Again, the standard is "compelling government interest." The burden is on them to explain what that is.

Did anyone notice this?

Safety department apologizes to ACLU for placement on terrorist map
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 11:38am

The state public safety commissioner apologized Wednesday for placing an ACLU letter about school Christmas parties on an Internet map of suspicious terrorist activities.
(...)
“In this case, a decision was made to take it down out of sensitivity,” safety department spokesman Mike Browning told The City Paper.

He said safety department Commissioner Dave Mitchell apologized in a phone conversation with Tennessee ACLU Executive Director Hedy Weinberg.

“He had a conversation with Hedy about the fact that it was placed on the map inappropriately,” Browning said. “Apparently, they are going to have a meeting and have a discussion about this and other issues that are of concern to the ACLU.”

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/safety-department-apologizes-aclu-placement-terrorist-map

TraneWreck

4th January 2011, 09:52 AM

Did anyone notice this?

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/safety-department-apologizes-aclu-placement-terrorist-map

That's good. Hopefully they're explaining everything to the ACLU and showing that it wasn't based on content.

The fact that they're claiming it was "inappropriate," however, seems to indicate that it wasn't normal operating procedure.

Checkmite

4th January 2011, 10:00 AM

Sure, they can look into it. They can even declare it "suspicious," but they need to explain why.

Again, no, they don't; and after 2 lengthy posts you are still trying to argue why you think that should be how things work rather than citing any laws or judgments demonstrating explicitly that it is so. Some case about the government wanting to require private citizens to declare this or that has nothing to do with this case where the government is not asking or requiring anyone to do anything, but has merely categorized an event for operational purposes.

TraneWreck

4th January 2011, 10:12 AM

Again, no, they don't; and after 2 lengthy posts you are still trying to argue why you think that should be how things work rather than citing any laws or judgments demonstrating explicitly that it is so. Some case about the government wanting to require private citizens to declare this or that has nothing to do with this case where the government is not asking or requiring anyone to do anything, but has merely categorized an event for operational purposes.

Yeah, that's just not true. When state action begins to affect fundamental constitutional rights the burden shifts. That's not how I "want" it to work. It's how it works.

The case I cited established the legal concept that a state can infringe on Freedom of Speech without taking direct action to prohibit or restrict.

The Supreme Court found that when state action has a "chilling effect" on free expression, it is unconstitutional. Publishing a notice that an organization is behaving "suspiciously" based on the content of a mailing is exactly that type of state action.

The law operates by analogy. The literal mind fares very poorly. Principles, not exactly similar facts, are the means by which we move forward. As I said, this concept of a "chilling effect" has such a long legal history that I don't doubt a case with very similar facts can be found. This would require a lot more work than I'm willing to do for the purpose of this forum.

I introduced a legal concept, cited a case that explained it, then applied it to the facts we're dealing with here. You've neither dealt with the legal concept nor attempted to find contradictory authority, you're just asserting that the facts don't match up. This is literally the weakest possible legal argument you can make, especially since you've exerted no effort to explain how the differing facts are materially relevant to the concept under discussion.

Checkmite

4th January 2011, 11:02 AM

The Supreme Court found that when state action has a "chilling effect" on free expression, it is unconstitutional. Publishing a notice that an organization is behaving "suspiciously" based on the content of a mailing is exactly that type of state action.

It has not been shown that the notice was based on the content of the mailing. And the law does not require LEAs in the state of Tennessee to disclose what makes an incident suspicious. I guess we're just at a logjam until a court case arises from this. Which, of course, won't happen.

TraneWreck

4th January 2011, 11:12 AM

It has not been shown that the notice was based on the content of the mailing. And the law does not require LEAs in the state of Tennessee to disclose what makes an incident suspicious. I guess we're just at a logjam until a court case arises from this. Which, of course, won't happen.

Right, that's why I used the word "if."

A specific law is irrelevant. As I've shown, the ACLU can file a suit based on infringement of first amendment rights. The state then has to prove that it wasn't content based.

From the news, it appears that Tennessee is busy explaining themselves to the ACLU, so they disagree with your assessment. They're trying to avoid the obvious fallout.

INRM

4th January 2011, 01:57 PM

With the SCOTUS ruling regarding material aid to terrorist organizations, I wonder how long it will be before the government labels the ACLU (and any civil liberties organization) as being a terrorist organization: The government could, by doing this, cut off all funding to all of the organizations, and criminalize any donations made to them.

INRM
"In closing, I want to remind you all that no matter how I die, it was murder."

Skeptic Ginger

4th January 2011, 06:17 PM

ponderingturtle

4th January 2011, 06:20 PM

Skeptic Ginger

4th January 2011, 06:22 PM

Did anyone notice this?“In this case, a decision was made to take it down out of sensitivity,” safety department spokesman Mike Browning told The City Paper.http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/safety-department-apologizes-aclu-placement-terrorist-mapSort of a mixed message there isn't it? They didn't take it down because it was wrong to put it there in the first place. They didn't explain why it was decided to put it there in the first place.

But they took it down "out of sensitivity". :rolleyes:

ponderingturtle

4th January 2011, 06:26 PM

Assuming facts not in evidence. Show us where the ACLU routinely sends out mass mailings to individual schools.

We need to get junk mail labeled as terrorism, it is the only way to be free. First lets start with the major political parties and their attempts to extort money from the american people.

BobTheDonkey

4th January 2011, 07:08 PM

Is the concept of one or a few people in the "Fusion" office (where the map is controlled) actually believing the ACLU's actions were 'bad' just being ignored here? Did I say it was conclusive? No. Did anyone present evidence for the alternative hypothesis? No.

What percentage of the population believing the ACLU supports the bad guys would be needed before the threshold was met for "possible explanation"?

And now we're on to not only false dichotomy, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Nothing has been evidenced either way. Correlating facts are not evidence (note that if the correlating facts were evidenced to be causal, they would become causal facts). Let me repeat that with emphasis Correlating facts are not evidence. Defaulting to the speculative conclusion you have reached is not the correct response to a lack of evidence.

Uncayimmy

4th January 2011, 09:06 PM

Skeptic Ginger

4th January 2011, 09:12 PM

And now we're on to not only false dichotomy, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Nothing has been evidenced either way. Correlating facts are not evidence (note that if the correlating facts were evidenced to be causal, they would become causal facts). Let me repeat that with emphasis Correlating facts are not evidence. Defaulting to the speculative conclusion you have reached is not the correct response to a lack of evidence.
I didn't know this many forumites had this much trouble with terminology we commonly use in critical thinking and the scientific process.

First, what false dichotomy? If you have a third hypothesis, by all means, let's read it. I'm open.

Second, we don't have an absence of evidence. We have some evidence supporting one hypothesis and none supporting the other.

Third, no one has claimed the unsupported hypothesis was definitely false or the hypothesis with some supporting evidence was definitely true. Yet that straw man just won't quit here.

The evidence we do have is more consistent with the hypothesis someone in the state office believed the ACLU letters belonged on the terrorism map for their content and who sent them. IE there was no 'accident' in the listing, only poor judgement of the person who decided to add the event to the map.

Show us some evidence supporting the other hypothesis. I'd love to see it. You guys remind me of the evolution deniers. You want to discredit the evidence supported hypothesis but you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis.

OK, on to the definitions.

evidencedev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

evidenceev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

correlation vs causation (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_correlation.htm)Sometimes a cause and effect are closely related - spatially, temporally or both - but sometimes they are not.

What is the difference between causation and correlation? (http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm)If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated.

What is the difference between causation and correlation? (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-cause-and-correlation.htm)The main difference between cause and correlation is the strength and degree to which two things are related and the certainty with which anyone can establish a causal relationship.

Either you are continuing to fight your straw man that my saying the evidence fits one hypothesis better than the other is supposedly a claim I said one hypothesis is PROVED, or, you don't understand that while correlation doesn't prove causation, you can't have causation without correlation.

BobTheDonkey

4th January 2011, 09:38 PM

I didn't know this many forumites had this much trouble with terminology we commonly use in critical thinking and the scientific process.

First, what false dichotomy? If you have a third hypothesis, by all means, let's read it. I'm open.

Second, we don't have an absence of evidence. We have some evidence supporting one hypothesis and none supporting the other.

Third, no one has claimed the unsupported hypothesis was definitely false or the hypothesis with some supporting evidence was definitely true. Yet that straw man just won't quit here.

The evidence we do have is more consistent with the hypothesis someone in the state office believed the ACLU letters belonged on the terrorism map for their content and who sent them. IE there was no 'accident' in the listing, only poor judgement of the person who decided to add the event to the map.

Show us some evidence supporting the other hypothesis. I'd love to see it. You guys remind me of the evolution deniers. You want to discredit the evidence supported hypothesis but you have yet to provide any evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis.

OK, on to the definitions.

evidenced

evidence

correlation vs causation (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_correlation.htm)

What is the difference between causation and correlation? (http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm)

What is the difference between causation and correlation? (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-cause-and-correlation.htm)

Either you are continuing to fight your straw man that my saying the evidence fits one hypothesis better than the other is supposedly a claim I said one hypothesis is PROVED, or, you don't understand that while correlation doesn't prove causation, you can't have causation without correlation.
There is as much evidence supporting your contention that the ACLU was put on the map because 30-45% (numbers out of your ass?) of TN residents are religious as there is that the decrease in numbers of Pirates is responsible for Global Climate Change.

Just because the data can be put on the same graph and appear to correlate, there is zero evidence linking these facts:

1) 30-45% of TN residents are religious fundies

2) O'Reilly labeled the ACLU as a Terrorist Organization

3) An unprecedented mass mailing was deemed "suspicious" by Officials in TN

You have yet to provide evidence that all three of these facts are linked. Until you do, all you have is purely a speculative conclusion based on your perceived, and as-of-yet unevidenced, bias against the ACLU in TN.

Keep in mind that, again, even if you provide evidence that a large percentage of the population in TN is religiously fundamental and dislikes the ACLU, you still haven't shown that the person responsible for labeling the ACLU as suspicious is one of those fundies. And even then, you would still not have evidenced that his decision was based on his fundie leanings, instead of other reasons.

So, Skeptic Ginger, you again fail the "correlation =/= causation" test because you have not yet proven that the correlating facts are actually causal.

ETA: And, yes, I understand the argument that evidence has to correlate to even be considered as a causal possibility. However, you are ignoring that there must still be shown a link between the the different facts gathered and the conclusion. You have not yet shown that link, so your "well, correlation is required for evidence to be causal" doesn't fly because, while you're correct, you're misapplying that to defend your speculative conclusion.

Uncayimmy

4th January 2011, 10:06 PM

First, what false dichotomy? If you have a third hypothesis, by all means, let's read it. I'm open.
1) Somebody who worked in the department was an O'Reilly fan and based on that decided to do it.

2) Somebody who pays no attention to O'Reilly decided to do it for reasons unknown.

3) Somebody who completely disagrees with O'Reilly but who is not very smart thought that since some people consider them terrorists, so it deserved to be posted.

4) Somebody took a big picture perspective and figured that it was worth letting law enforcement know that an organization that often opposes the government sent an unsolicited mass mailing reminding schools to obey the law as they interpret it.

5) Somebody figured that some people get really pissed about the "war on Christmas" and that law enforcement should be aware that the ACLU may have just pissed off a bunch of people. Maybe the cops can keep an extra eye out for suspicious activity around ACLU offices.

As for why they took it down, somebody with half a brain figured it's just not worth fighting the frigging ACLU over something as trivial as that, even if there was a good reason for doing it in the first place. Why get into a pissing match in the press and have to bring in lawyers? After all, it was up already, and the press coverage alone will notify those who need to know.

As for the rest of your nonsense, it's just that.

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 12:01 AM

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 12:52 AM

There is as much evidence supporting your contention that the ACLU was put on the map because 30-45% (numbers out of your ass?) of TN residents are religious as there is that the decrease in numbers of Pirates is responsible for Global Climate Change.

Just because the data can be put on the same graph and appear to correlate, there is zero evidence linking these facts:

1) 30-45% of TN residents are religious fundies

2) O'Reilly labeled the ACLU as a Terrorist Organization

3) An unprecedented mass mailing was deemed "suspicious" by Officials in TN

You have yet to provide evidence that all three of these facts are linked. Until you do, all you have is purely a speculative conclusion based on your perceived, and as-of-yet unevidenced, bias against the ACLU in TN.

Keep in mind that, again, even if you provide evidence that a large percentage of the population in TN is religiously fundamental and dislikes the ACLU, you still haven't shown that the person responsible for labeling the ACLU as suspicious is one of those fundies. And even then, you would still not have evidenced that his decision was based on his fundie leanings, instead of other reasons.

So, Skeptic Ginger, you again fail the "correlation =/= causation" test because you have not yet proven that the correlating facts are actually causal.

ETA: And, yes, I understand the argument that evidence has to correlate to even be considered as a causal possibility. However, you are ignoring that there must still be shown a link between the the different facts gathered and the conclusion. You have not yet shown that link, so your "well, correlation is required for evidence to be causal" doesn't fly because, while you're correct, you're misapplying that to defend your speculative conclusion.Just what is it that is stopping you from getting past your brain block here. You've argued against the same straw man again. It's unbelievable.

The evidence leans toward option A. No evidence leans toward option B. Given the evidence we have, option A better explains the evidence.

So where in that summary of the essence of the discussion (or in my posts) do you see:
Proves option A ?
Proves causation ?
Disproves alternative explanations ?

Where do you see:
Overwhelmingly supports option A ?
Rules out alternative options ?

Where do you see:
Strongly supports option A ?
There is enough evidence that alternative options can be dismissed ?

Answers: You don't, you don't, you don't, you don't, you don't, you don't, and, you don't.

I suggest you keep building this straw man because you cannot argue against the real position, that is, the evidence is more consistent with one explanation than the other. It's easy to argue no one proved anything. Especially when no one said they proved anything.

3) An unprecedented mass mailing was deemed "suspicious" by Officials in TN

You have yet to provide evidence that all three of these facts are linked. And let's break these two comments down further. There has been no evidence of "an unprecedented mass mailing". The term, Mass mailing in itself is ludicrous. UY made an unsupported claim that the letters were unusual because of the number but then he asked other people to support his claim. We all know that's not who has the burden to support a claim.

And I might have bothered to look further except the hypothesis itself has other flaws so it wasn't necessary.

Just like similar hypotheses suggesting the letters created some kind of red flag, the state officials did not provide ANY rationale for why they put the incident on the map. They had the opportunity to rationalize and they would have looked better. But they did not. They did not say the letters were suspicious, the letters had powder, there was a complaint about the letters, the letters were unusual or unprecedented.

State officials were unable to explain the listing, they apologized, and they took the listing down.

So which is more consistent with that scenario (heaven forbid I call it evidence, and please note I sad "consistent with", not "is", or "proves"):

That there was a good reason the incident got put on the map like UY's unsupported claim but the officials didn't say what it was, and instead chose to remain embarrassed by the incident? Remember this map is intended to tell people if such 'real' incidents occur. If it were something about the letters, that information belonged in the map listing. That is the purpose of the map.

Or, is it more consistent with the officials response that someone's biases against the ACLU and/or against the perceived 'war on Christmas' or on Christians was the reason the incident was put on the map and the officials would be embarrassed to admit that so they just didn't explain beyond saying it was a mistake?

As for "[I] have yet to provide evidence of a link"...

WELL D'UH. I've been saying that over and over but you keep fighting this straw man of your own making. Since there is NO evidence for one hypothesis, one only needs a little bit of evidence supporting the other hypothesis to say the evidence is more consistent with it. This entire discussion has been based on the claim there was no evidence for one option and a little for the other.

Vocabulary assignment for the day, kids:
Compare and contrast "consistent with", and, "proves".

BobTheDonkey

5th January 2011, 01:25 AM

Bah, I had found a couple of your quotes where you actually did what your post said you didn't. Along with a little more of an explanation for why my posts are strawmanning your argument...but then I lost it and decided it wasn't worth the effort a second time.

Let me just post this little bit:

Your argument is flawed, Ginger. You claim that you're just speculating, but use that as a disclaimer for exactly the reason you posted above. It's a "get out of jail free" card that you're now waiving about wildly since you've been shown how faulty your conclusion is.

What you have chosen as correlating facts and used as "evidence" to support your speculation are based on confirmation bias. And this is why your correlation is fallacious and, quite simply, wrong. Without showing the link between the two points, there is no reason to bring the first into it. Most certainly not something so removed as O'Reilly's statements with regards to the ACLU.

All of your "Evidence" is irrelevant with that causal link. That you continue to miss this in order to support your conclusion is merely evidence of your bias.

The only facts pertaining to this case that we know are:

1) The ACLU sent a large mailing to multiple Superintendents.
2) In response, for specific reasons unknown, the ACLU was labeled as "suspicious", indicating a possible need for further investigation, not labeling the ACLU as a terrorist organization, or linked to terrorist plots.
3) The head of the Fusion Center declined to state specifically why the ACLU was removed, only that it was a "mistake" to put the ACLU on the board and had been removed due to "sensitivity issues".

Those are the facts that can be shown to pertain to this case. Everything else is simply cherry picking correlating facts to prove your conclusion. And that's the problem with the correlation you're claiming adds credence to your claim. It just simply hasn't been proven to be applicable, and as such, shouldn't even be brought into the conversation. It's like if I were to claim that since there are fewer Pirates this year, the ACLU was put on the map. It's as possible as your conclusion given the evidence linking our respective pieces of evidence to the incident in TN.

Uncayimmy

5th January 2011, 08:37 AM

Those distinction are trivial, UY. But if that's the false dichotomy that Bob was referring to, he's off the mark. I simply stated two hypotheses to simplify the discussion in my post. Again you all can't get over reading straw man absolutes into a post where none were stated.

The distinctions are trivial? Whatever.

About all you can say is, "I wonder if O'Reilly calling the ACLU terrorists had anything to do with it." That's about it.

pgwenthold

5th January 2011, 09:34 AM

Did anyone notice this?

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/safety-department-apologizes-aclu-placement-terrorist-map

So to summarize:

The Tennessee Safety Department admits that it was "inappropriate" to include the ACLU mailing on the watch list, and yet, there are still people in this thread who are insisting it was proper.

BobTheDonkey

5th January 2011, 09:42 AM

So to summarize:

The Tennessee Safety Department admits that it was "inappropriate" to include the ACLU mailing on the watch list, and yet, there are still people in this thread who are insisting it was proper.

"inappropriate" due to "sensitivity issues".

That doesn't exactly lend Skeptic Ginger the line between her correlating facts and proving they're causal.

Checkmite

5th January 2011, 09:45 AM

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 11:11 AM

As an aside, It occurs to me that "Bill O'Reilly and his comrades have called the ACLU terrorists, therefore it's likely that the State of Tennessee believes they are a terrorist organization" is a classic demonstration of the sort of reasoning that gives birth to most conspiracy theories involving the government.

More straw Checkmite. I have been very careful to say the evidence is consistent with a single individual or a couple of individuals, not "the State of Tennessee believes" as you have dishonestly claimed there.

Checkmite

5th January 2011, 11:18 AM

When the correction is made, the point still applies.

Uncayimmy

5th January 2011, 11:28 AM

When the correction is made, the point still applies.

Actually, the point is probably a bit stronger. If the State of Tennessee considers the ACLU a terrorist organization, that's a matter of policy. If only a few within the government take it upon themselves to insert their personal views under the guise of working for the state, that's a conspiracy.

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 11:31 AM

So to summarize:

The Tennessee Safety Department admits that it was "inappropriate" to include the ACLU mailing on the watch list, and yet, there are still people in this thread who are insisting it was proper.Actually the people you refer to are trying to say it "could have been" proper. They don't have a shred of evidence it "was" proper but I don't want to create the same kind of straw man they've been creating.

In order to deny the obvious, the argument has been based only on trying to discredit the evidence we do have, not on presenting any evidence to support the proposed hypotheses that there was an actual reason. Besides distorting the hypothesis they are arguing against and arguing against the straw man instead of the real argument, the people you refer to are also cherry picking the evidence.

To summarize that evidence:
There is evidence some people believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization. The fact we don't know if any of those folks were involved has never been denied.

But we also have the evidence the State apologized and offered no explanation for how the 'mistake' occurred.

As TW pointed out:....
If they have a legitimate reason for doing what they did, Tennessee merely needs to say so. It shouldn't be hard to prove....

Sure, they can look into it. They can even declare it "suspicious," but they need to explain why. If it's content based it's a violation of the First Amendment, if it's not content based it shouldn't be hard to say so.

Again, the standard is "compelling government interest." The burden is on them to explain what that is.

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 11:43 AM

Bah, I had found a couple of your quotes where you actually did what your post said you didn't. Along with a little more of an explanation for why my posts are strawmanning your argument...but then I lost it and decided it wasn't worth the effort a second time.False memories. You recall what you misread and surprise, now you can't find it. :rolleyes:

Your argument is flawed, Ginger. You claim that you're just speculating, but use that as a disclaimer for exactly the reason you posted above. It's a "get out of jail free" card that you're now waiving about wildly since you've been shown how faulty your conclusion is... [snip more of the same]

Just to recap the argument as it stood from the beginning of the thread:But this is about finding the best explanation for an event. The Fusion Center has now admitted that this "suspicious activity" is not suspicious at all, so we can rule out that possibility. As far as I'm aware, this leaves us with two primary choices:

1. The ACLU was placed on the map because somebody at the TN center (possibly just one airhead in their tech department) felt that the ACLU was trying to destroy Christmas, and really, that's basically the same thing as murdering Jesus, which is like shooting Uncle Sam.

2. The ACLU letter was placed on their map as a "general news" item, even though the TN center doesn't place general news items on the map, didn't have an icon for non-suspicious events, and is certainly not in the business of sharing interesting stories and current events.

I find option 1 to be more likely.I see this is where the first reference to the false dichotomy occurred. I have no issue adding this third (#2 above) and even less likely hypothesis.

And since the arguments have just become the usual mulberry bush go-round, he's another key statement already made:It takes quite a bit of denial to pretend that being placed on a "terrorist and suspicious activity" watchlist doesn't mean that those who placed you there suspect you are a terrorist or doing suspicious activity related to terrorism.

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 11:45 AM

Actually, the point is probably a bit stronger. If the State of Tennessee considers the ACLU a terrorist organization, that's a matter of policy. If only a few within the government take it upon themselves to insert their personal views under the guise of working for the state, that's a conspiracy.Really? An employee acting on their own who does something the boss disapproves of is a "conspiracy"?

Uncayimmy

5th January 2011, 11:48 AM

To summarize that evidence:
There is evidence some people believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization. The fact we don't know if any of those folks were involved has never been denied.

Evidence? <cough>

But we also have the evidence the State apologized and offered no explanation for how the 'mistake' occurred.
You mean that they didn't state publicly what the reasons were. We don't even know for sure if it was a mistake. This is the ACLU we're talking about. They are not shy about filing lawsuits or fighting battles in the press. What would be the point of fighting them over this? It will cost time and money, and it will subject them to scrutiny they probably don't want. You don't take on the ACLU over something as trivial as this because it's simply not worth the effort.

But, by all means, continue with your conspiracy theory. It's amusing.

Uncayimmy

5th January 2011, 11:52 AM

Really? An employee acting on their own who does something the boss disapproves of is a "conspiracy"?

What part of "a few" did you take to mean just one person?

Furthermore, even if it was just one person who made the initial decision, if the boss disapproves of it but does not cite the reasons publicly, he would be involved as well.

You still haven't answered my question about how you would react to receiving a "benign" letter at your alleged medical practice telling you to obey the law. Would you consider it a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 02:44 PM

OK, two or three or a department of employees take an action management disapproves of is a conspiracy?

That's beyond a stretch...

Checkmite

5th January 2011, 03:42 PM

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 03:47 PM

There is evidence some people believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization. The fact we don't know if any of those folks were involved has never been denied.Evidence? <cough>So now you are denying there is evidence some people believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization?

But we also have the evidence the State apologized and offered no explanation for how the 'mistake' occurred.You mean that they didn't state publicly what the reasons were. We don't even know for sure if it was a mistake. This is the ACLU we're talking about. They are not shy about filing lawsuits or fighting battles in the press. What would be the point of fighting them over this? It will cost time and money, and it will subject them to scrutiny they probably don't want. You don't take on the ACLU over something as trivial as this because it's simply not worth the effort.

But, by all means, continue with your conspiracy theory. It's amusing.What's your argument here, that two news accounts QUOTING the Fusion Center's spokesperson saying it was "a mistake" are not reliable?

In case you need a review:
ACLU calls anti-terrorism agency map placement 'disturbing' (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/aclu-calls-anti-terrorism-agency-map-placement-disturbing)Mike Browning, a spokesman for the Fusion Center, said “that was a mistake” to label the ACLU letter as a suspicious activity. He said the Fusion Center meant to use the icon that means merely general information. That's pretty clear, "was a mistake" is in quotes.

“It’s still on the map,” Browning told The City Paper. “It has been reclassified into the general information category.”Sounds like a mistake that was corrected, doesn't it?

Browning said, “You can argue that you don’t like the word terrorism in there, but it’s just general news that’s provided. That’s the general news category. It doesn’t have anything to do with terrorism. It was just provided to schools as general information.”Sounds like a mistake here too.

Browning continued the next day: Safety department apologizes to ACLU for placement on terrorist map (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/safety-department-apologizes-aclu-placement-terrorist-map)The state public safety commissioner apologized Wednesday for placing an ACLU letter about school Christmas parties on an Internet map of suspicious terrorist activities.

The alert about the ACLU letter was removed from the map of “terrorism events and other suspicious activity” on the website operated by the Tennessee Fusion Center,...

...He said safety department Commissioner Dave Mitchell apologized in a phone conversation with Tennessee ACLU Executive Director Hedy Weinberg. ...

“He had a conversation with Hedy about the fact that it was placed on the map inappropriately,” Browning said. “Apparently, they are going to have a meeting and have a discussion about this and other issues that are of concern to the ACLU.”

Weinberg called it a case of “really blatant stupidity” on the part of the state intelligence agency.... “It’s fine to say it was a mistake and the analyst shouldn’t have put this up [on the Internet map.] But who’s checking the analyst? There needs to be a guideline or principle, perhaps even a law, that protects the citizens’ First Amendment right to protest, to speak out, to do what he or she might want to do without fearing that law enforcement is collecting information about those people’s political or religious views or associations.”Couldn't be more clear here. An analyst made the decision, it was not based on suspicious activity, the management apologized for THE MISTAKE.

Then there is the ACLU official response: Tennessee Law Enforcement Classifies Protected Free Speech as “Suspicious Activity” - State Fusion Center Tracks ACLU of Tennessee (http://www.aclu-tn.org/release122110.htm)“It is deeply disturbing that Tennessee’s fusion center is tracking First Amendment-protected activity,” said Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-TN Executive Director. “Equating a group’s attempts to protect religious freedom in Tennessee with suspicious activity related to terrorism is outrageous. Religious freedom is a founding principle in our Constitution—not fodder for overzealous law enforcement.”As TraneWreck has pointed out, this is a very serious accusation. Yet the state officials do not deny it.

The WA Post has an in depth story on the national system of these Fusion Centers that relates to this thread.

Page 6 of Monitoring America (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/monitoring-america/6/)"There was a time when law enforcement didn't know much about drugs. This is no different," said Steven W. Hewitt, who runs the Tennessee fusion center, considered one of the best in the country. "Are we experts at the level of [the National Counterterrorism Center]? No. Are we developing an expertise? Absolutely."

But how they do that is usually left up to the local police departments themselves. In their desire to learn more about terrorism, many departments are hiring their own trainers. Some are self-described experts whose extremist views are considered inaccurate and harmful by the FBI and others in the intelligence community

But go ahead guys. Keep up the denial and the straw man anyone has said anything about a CT except you, or that I've got no evidence for my position so it must be a CT as Checkmite claims above.

Checkmite

5th January 2011, 03:54 PM

If it was a mistake - as in, an accident - that the event ended up on the website then there was no actual "speech tracking" involved and the apology should suffice; the whole thing is even more of a nonevent.

Uncayimmy

5th January 2011, 03:55 PM

So now you are denying there is evidence some people believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization?
Nope. I'm scoffing at the notion that it's evidence as to why that event was listed.

What's your argument here, that two news accounts QUOTING the Fusion Center's spokesperson saying it was "a mistake" are not reliable?
Nope. I'm saying that there are very good reasons for publicly stating that it was a mistake even if it wasn't. I thought I made that clear.

In case you need a review:
Nope. Please don't confuse me thinking your argument is ridiculous with not understanding it. I understand it fully. I think it's silly.

But go ahead guys. Keep up the denial and the straw man anyone has said anything about a CT except you, or that I've got no evidence for my position so it must be a CT as Checkmite claims above.
Could you repeat your argument again? I think I missed it.

Uncayimmy

5th January 2011, 03:58 PM

My own point wasn't necessarily that what Skeptic Ginger calls the "more likely" scenario is a conspiracy theory (although it can sound like one) - it's that her conclusion was formed in the same way conspiracy theories are formed; the arbitrary and specious linking of unrelated facts, and giving more weight to coincidences than is due.

Yep. It's another another hallmark of a CT to continue to present more and more "evidence" that something obvious and undisputed is true while at the same time not presenting evidence for any other links in the chain. "Gee, if they could only see that pirates wear eye patches O'Reilly calls the ACLU terrorists, they would understand. I better post another 20 links as evidence."

BobTheDonkey

5th January 2011, 04:57 PM

To clarify, Skeptic Ginger, I did find quotes. I had an entire post nearly typed out, and I hit the back button my browser on accident, causing me to lose them.

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 07:44 PM

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 07:46 PM

To clarify, Skeptic Ginger, I did find quotes. I had an entire post nearly typed out, and I hit the back button my browser on accident, causing me to lose them.
Either quote what I said or don't make false claims about what you believe I said.

Uncayimmy

5th January 2011, 07:50 PM

Seriously, an accident? What someone spilled their coffee and the map malfunctioned?

It can happen. Maybe they were were watching O'Reilly at the time.

Checkmite

5th January 2011, 08:30 PM

Seriously, an accident? What someone spilled their coffee and the map malfunctioned?

You're the one who keeps quoting the whole "mistake" thing - in bold font, even - as if it's pertinent data. Are we not to take the statement at face value? Is the government here calling it a mistake just a...what's the word....cover-up of the truth?

BobTheDonkey

5th January 2011, 10:30 PM

Either quote what I said or don't make false claims about what you believe I said.

Christianity is prevalent in Tennessee. Many Christians view requests to stop school prayer and stop promoting Christian celebrations in schools as attacks on Christmas and Christians. Fox promotes this view. And since the ACLU is frequently in support of separation of church and public school, people like O'Reilly and his many like minded followers have said publicly they believe the ACLU is a terrorist organization.

There is no better explanation for how the ACLU came to be mentioned on the state's terrorism notice board than people with these beliefs.
There is not enough evidence to say for certain. There is enough evidence to say it's the best explanation for the evidence.

I'd like to point out, again, that the evidence you are basing these claims on have not been proven to be more relevant than the decrease in numbers of pirates.

Skeptic Ginger

5th January 2011, 11:29 PM

Sticking to your indefensible position has become comedic.

BobTheDonkey

6th January 2011, 01:58 AM

Sticking to your indefensible position has become comedic.

So then you have some kind of link between all the facts you've been on about since Page 1 and the incident? Or are you still hiding behind disclaimers before spouting off about O'Reilly and Co and how their comments supposedly relate?

Skeptic Ginger

6th January 2011, 12:15 PM

Bob, the evidence has been presented.
1) There are many people who think the ACLU is anti-American at best and a terrorist group at worst.
2) Higher ups from the TN State department involved have every reason to explain themselves if sentiment against the letter's content and/or the ACLU was NOT the reason "an analyst" put the incident on the map.
3) By not explaining themselves the state risks being accused of and/or sued for infringement of the ACLU's free speech rights.
4) The state admits "an analyst made a mistake", and there are no guidelines for said analysts.
5) The explanations for said "mistake" have been inconsistent and inadequate. "It was a "mislabeled general news event" fails because no other "general news events" are on the map. "It was removed out of sensitivity" fails to say why it was there in the first place.
6) A phone discussion occurred between the Fusion Department Head and the TN ACLU head where Browning "apologized" to the ACLU. If there was a good reason besides bias against the ACLU, an explanation would have accompanied the apology.
7) The ACLU posted a response addressing the reason putting them on the map was directly related to challenging their free speech rights. From my earlier link in post #155:“It is deeply disturbing that Tennessee’s fusion center is tracking First Amendment-protected activity,” said Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-TN Executive Director. “Equating a group’s attempts to protect religious freedom in Tennessee with suspicious activity related to terrorism is outrageous. Religious freedom is a founding principle in our Constitution—not fodder for overzealous law enforcement.”

When this thread discussion started, all we had was the fact no explanation was forthcoming from the state and more than a few people view the ACLU and this kind of activity as anti-American including some who have publicly called the ACLU a terrorist group. Now we have the ACLU's description of what occurred and the state doing everything short of a public admission this was indeed because of an analyst's bias against the ACLU and the content of the letter.

Do you see a denial from the state or an objection to the ACLU's characterization of the incident? Other than calling it a mistake, and trying to walk back the "equating with suspicious activity" by saying it was a "general news event" when no other general news events were on the map, state officials have not denied this was the reason the incident was placed on the map.

And despite all this, you, UY, and Checkmite have been unable to admit your speculated hypothesis and/or other alternative hypotheses are inconsistent with what we know about this event. You all keep insisting there is not enough evidence to even tentatively conclude what likely occurred here. That is your argument. Not that there is evidence for any alternative hypothesis, but that you want some kind of 'proof'. Are you then calling the ACLU paranoid thinking there is some CT against them in TN? :rolleyes:

The explanation the ACLU itself has given, as well as I have suggested, "is the best explanation for the evidence", and "there is no better explanation". The comments I've made throughout this thread have been consistent. No, we don't have "proof". But at this point one explanation, the one the ACLU themselves gave, is the only explanation consistent with the evidence.

Uncayimmy

6th January 2011, 12:38 PM

Bob, the evidence has been presented.
1) There are many people who think the ACLU is anti-American at best and a terrorist group at worst.
Yes.

2) Higher ups from the TN State department involved have every reason to explain themselves if sentiment against the letter's content and/or the ACLU was NOT the reason "an analyst" put the incident on the map.
No, they don't. In fact, they have very good reasons for not explaining anything but merely taking it down, even if they believe they had a legitimate reason for putting it up. Many government entities overreact to the ACLU to "play it safe." Truth is, you're about the only one going on about this. A Google News search shows nobody in the last week has written any articles with the keywords Tennessee, ACLU and terrorist. They successfully avoided a tempest in a teapot.

3) By not explaining themselves the state risks being accused of and/or sued for infringement of the ACLU's free speech rights.
They took it down, so the risk is small. If there's a risk of a lawsuit, the proper course of action is to not make any public statements, which is what they have done.

4) The state admits "an analyst made a mistake", and there are no guidelines for said analysts.
Can you cite any evidence for your claims? All I've seen is the following:

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/aclu-calls-anti-terrorism-agency-map-placement-disturbing
Mike Browning, a spokesman for the Fusion Center, said “that was a mistake” to label the ACLU letter as a suspicious activity. He said the Fusion Center meant to use the icon that means merely general information. The icon was changed after the ACLU sent its news release, he said.

“It’s still on the map,” Browning told The City Paper. “It has been reclassified into the general information category.”

5) The explanations for said "mistake" have been inconsistent and inadequate. "It was a "mislabeled general news event" fails because no other "general news events" are on the map. "It was removed out of sensitivity" fails to say why it was there in the first place.
What do you mean that no other General News events are on the map? I've seen them. Do a search.

6) A phone discussion occurred between the Fusion Department Head and the TN ACLU head where Browning "apologized" to the ACLU. If there was a good reason besides bias against the ACLU, an explanation would have accompanied the apology.
See #3.

7) The ACLU posted a response addressing the reason putting them on the map was directly related to challenging their free speech rights. From my earlier link in post #155:
Yeh, and?

Like I said, it's not that I don't understand your argument. I do, and I think it sucks.

BobTheDonkey

6th January 2011, 01:46 PM

Skeptic Ginger, the problem is that what we know about this incident and what you continue to collude with this incident are quite different.

I have repeatedly stated what we know about his incident:

1) The ACLU sent letters to an undisclosed number of Public School Officials.
2) The TN Fusion Center labeled this as a suspicious activity (notably not a terrorist activity, and the Fusion Center board has been subsequently shown to list happenings that are not terrorist in nature)
3) After this activity was noted by the local press, the Fusion Center admitted that they made a "mistake" and changed the label due to "sensitivity issues".

Those are the facts as pertain directly to this issue. Everything else you have mentioned is nothing more than attempts at using collusion to support the bias-induced conclusion you reached. That's this thread in a nutshell.

You continue to claim that O'Reilly and Fox, et al, labeling the ACLU as Terrorists is related, and yet have not shown evidence. Relying instead on hiding behind labeling your assertions and conclusions as merely speculation, and then claiming that speculation is warranted and valid given factoids that have not been shown to have any connection to the issue at hand. Sounds like this thread should be in the conspiracy forum at this point, right?

In the words of UY: "It's not that I don't understand your argument. I do, and I think it sucks."

TraneWreck

6th January 2011, 01:57 PM

2) The TN Fusion Center labeled this as a suspicious activity (notably not a terrorist activity, and the Fusion Center board has been subsequently shown to list happenings that are not terrorist in nature)

They're all either very obviously terrorist related or very obviously criminal.

There isn't a single item under "suspicious activity" that was dubbed such because it was a mass mailing, and there was not a single package or letter placed on the map because of where or from whom it was sent.

No one has provided any explanation of why the ACLU mailing was dubbed suspicious.

BobTheDonkey

6th January 2011, 02:05 PM

Uncayimmy

6th January 2011, 02:28 PM

They're all either very obviously terrorist related or very obviously criminal.

There isn't a single item under "suspicious activity" that was dubbed such because it was a mass mailing, and there was not a single package or letter placed on the map because of where or from whom it was sent.
Since you hand-waved away the examples I gave, I guess that's true. How about these under Other - Suspicious Activity?

A man being held in the Houston County Jail on two alcohol related offenses was discovered dead in his cell early Tuesday when jail personnel attempted to wake him to complete the booking and bonding process. Houston County Sheriff Kennith Barnes identified the inmate as Robert Perry, 40, of Dover. Perry’s body has been sent to the state medical examiner for autopsy, but the sheriff said there were no immediate signs of foul play. The death is being investigated by Detective Derrick Jones of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. Barnes said Perry and Burt Spicer, 40, of McKinnon were arrested in Tennessee Ridge about 12:30 a.m. Tuesday. At the time, Spicer, who was driving Perry’s vehicle, refused a blood-alcohol test and was charged with driving under the influenced of intoxicants. Perry was charged with criminal responsibility for letting an alleged intoxicated person drive his car and with public intoxication.

How about the ACLU being associated with a possible treason charge for showing photos of CIA operatives to known terrorists?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/aclu-photos/
The lawyer’s clients have been charged with terrorism crimes related to the 9/11 attacks and are being tried before a military commission. The lawyers have been considering calling the CIA interrogators to the witness stand.

The photos, some of which were taken surreptitiously outside the homes of CIA personnel, were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, a project run jointly by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which is helping the military attorneys defend their clients, a source told the Post.

Regarding speech, how about this one under General Non-Incident Terrorism News?
A group of more than 50 people gathered at the steps to the Federal Reserve Bank in Nashville on Sunday to call for an audit of the organization and an end to printing money that isn't backed by a commodity like gold.The protest coincided with more than 40 protests across the country, all organized through the End the Fed Network. That group holds weekly online meetings and teleconferences.Eric Sharp, a 20-year-old Middle Tennessee State University political science major, led the Nashville protest. Sharp said he joined End the Fed a year ago, and this was the third rally he's orchestrated.

Oh, and check this one out. Is O'Reilly against snow storms?
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) - Much of West Tennessee was under a winter storm warning Monday morning and some traffic problems were reported.

Several school systems canceled classes for Monday as snow and ice were accumulating on some road surfaces.

The snowfall also caused the closure of the flyover ramps at the Interstate 40, Interstate 240 interchange.

City police spokesman Vince Higgins said in most cases the roads were wet before dawn Monday with snow accumulating on grassy surfaces, but the flyover ramps have become extremely hazardous because ice formed on them.

A winter weather advisory was issued for West Tennessee counties closer to the Tennessee River. The advisory extended into the northern part of Middle Tennessee.

The National Weather Service called for 3-5 inches of snow possible in Memphis and 1-3 inches likely in Union City.

No one has provided any explanation of why the ACLU mailing was dubbed suspicious.
And nobody has provided any evidence as to a drunk dying in a jail cell is suspicious. Or why snow is related to terrorism.

Uncayimmy

6th January 2011, 02:29 PM

TraneWreck

6th January 2011, 02:31 PM

So that justifies the collusion Skeptic and You engaged in? Let's just jump to random conclusions because no official one has been presented. Again, shouldn't this be moved to the conspiracy forum at this point?

What on Earth are you talking about? Collusion?

My argument has been clear from the beginning. It's correct in legal terms, it's founded on the Constitution and hundreds of subsequent court rulings, and the ACLU appears to have the same understanding.

There is enough evidence to require an explanation from the state. The nature of that explanation will dictate how things proceed.

Your histrionics aside, you have exactly zero evidence to support your case and are incorrect about how the law treats matters of this nature.

TraneWreck

6th January 2011, 02:43 PM

Since you hand-waved away the examples I gave, I guess that's true. How about these under Other - Suspicious Activity?

How about the ACLU being associated with a possible treason charge for showing photos of CIA operatives to known terrorists?

Regarding speech, how about this one under General Non-Incident Terrorism News?

Oh, and check this one out. Is O'Reilly against snow storms?

And nobody has provided any evidence as to a drunk dying in a jail cell is suspicious. Or why snow is related to terrorism.

Uh, a dead body in a jail is a fairly obvious cause for suspicion. Once again, you're taking a report that explains the conclusion of a matter and using it to argue that it was no big deal. When the alert was put up, before they learned no foul play was involved---just like with the missing person I mentioned earlier---it is suspicous. Please explain what factual grounds you're using to analogize between a letter and a dead body.

The others weren't even under the suspicious activity category, but are still easily distinguished.

I'm not sure you understand what that map is used for. It's a tool that allows law enforcement operaters to quickly and easily communicate with each other. It was made available to the public.

Now, it's fairly obvious why law enforcement personnell would want to know if a protest were planned outside the Fed. Reserve bank. Traffic will be an issue, people could get out of hand...etc. It's useful for officers to know it's going on.

THe same is true of snowstorms. Roads are closed, schools are shut down, there will be accidents, people may be calling for help, and the storm is moving. Officers in the path of the storm can see what's happening and prepare themselves.

Now please explain how learning of a mass mailing, something that happens multiple times a day, is important information for law enforcement officials. What did they need to prepare for? Lots of paper cuts?

If there is something weird about the letter, then it makes sense: there was white powder, it was ticking, it detailed a plot to set off bombs in the schools...etc., but we have none of that. There is nothing on that map that so totally lacks any obvious indication of wrong-doing or potential wrongdoing or has some relevance to what a law enforcement official would be doing.

Tennessee has admitted it was a mistake. Now the only question is what that means.

BobTheDonkey

6th January 2011, 03:01 PM

What on Earth are you talking about? Collusion?

My argument has been clear from the beginning. It's correct in legal terms, it's founded on the Constitution and hundreds of subsequent court rulings, and the ACLU appears to have the same understanding.

There is enough evidence to require an explanation from the state. The nature of that explanation will dictate how things proceed.

Your histrionics aside, you have exactly zero evidence to support your case and are incorrect about how the law treats matters of this nature.

I'm sorry, you're correct. I was using the wrong term. I meant "conflate/conflating" in place of "collusion".

Regardless, you have not yet shown that the suspicious label was intended to intimidate the ACLU. Nor have you shown that the ACLU activity was unique in being labeled suspicious while other similar incidents were not.

There has been no reason to suspect the content of the letter is what caused the label to be applied.

Uncayimmy

6th January 2011, 03:02 PM

Uh, a dead body in a jail is a fairly obvious cause for suspicion.
A dead drunk warrants listing on a terrorist oriented website? Oh, c'mon!

The others weren't even under the suspicious activity category, but are still easily distinguished.
The second one I listed regarding the ACLU was under the suspicious category.

I'm not sure you understand what that map is used for. It's a tool that allows law enforcement operaters to quickly and easily communicate with each other. It was made available to the public.
Thanks, Scoop, for the inside story.

Now, it's fairly obvious why law enforcement personnell would want to know if a protest were planned outside the Fed. Reserve bank. Traffic will be an issue, people could get out of hand...etc. It's useful for officers to know it's going on.
This was not an announcement beforehand but a reporting afterwards. Surely you understand the difference.

THe same is true of snowstorms. Roads are closed, schools are shut down, there will be accidents, people may be calling for help, and the storm is moving. Officers in the path of the storm can see what's happening and prepare themselves.
Right. Law enforcement goes to the Global Incident Map website for their weather reports. <shakes head>

Shouldn't law enforcement be made aware that the ACLU, which is despised by many people and called a terrorist organization, sent letters regarding a highly sensitive issue (Christmas celebrations)? If there's a "suspicious" package or vehicle near ACLU offices, wouldn't it be a good idea for law enforcement to know that the ACLU recently (and lawfully) pissed off a bunch of people? If they receive a box that reads, "Celebrate This!" might it be useful to know that they sent the letters?

Now please explain how learning of a mass mailing, something that happens multiple times a day, is important information for law enforcement officials.
Once again, present evidence that it's routine for schools to receive letters advising them to follow the law.

Tennessee has admitted it was a mistake. Now the only question is what that means.
They said it was a mistake. I would, too, if it would get the ACLU off my back. It's just not worth fighting the battle to defend it since the notice already went out and it will hit the news anyway. The goal was accomplished. Why get into a pissing match? I don't know that's what happened, but it's entirely plausible.

TraneWreck

6th January 2011, 03:36 PM

A dead drunk warrants listing on a terrorist oriented website? Oh, c'mon!

If you don't know why he's dead? You really don't see why a law enforcement group would call that "suspicious?"

And I thought you were the one arguing that the "suspicious" category wasn't about terrorism.

The second one I listed regarding the ACLU was under the suspicious category.

And the charge of wrongdoing is quite clear. The criminality or accusation there of is plain in the statement.

This was not an announcement beforehand but a reporting afterwards. Surely you understand the difference.

You can say with certainty that it didn't begin as an alert as it was happening and then later updated?

Remember the missing person report? Allison Daugherty?

When I first brought it up, there was just a link to the basic description. Today, there's an inclusion of a news story:

http://tnfusion.globalincidentmap.com/home.php
http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/Wartburg_Police_searching_for_missing__112826389.h tml

If they find her tomorrow and she's ok, there will be a link to a story that says just that. A week from, you could bring up that story and say, "that's an example of reporting afterward, don't you understand the difference?"

The board is updated every ten minutes.

Let's assume I'm completely wrong about the dead drunk guy, no suspicious activity was listed before they knew the cause of death. It's also possible that the police department, upon finding a dead body, started calling a bunch of other departments and investigative agencies. They, in turn, began working to figure out what happened.

What would be an excellent way of ensuring that all parties knew the result of the test without having to call each of them individually and have each of them call everyone they talked to...etc.? Update the board and say nothing came of it.

But again, they're putting up suspicious and criminal activity in real time then updating the result. Quite likely, there was a blurb about the coming protest then it was updated when a news story was written.

Right. Law enforcement goes to the Global Incident Map website for their weather reports. <shakes head>

No, but they may go to see if the problem is large enough that they have to send emergency vehicles to assist neighboring counties.

Shouldn't law enforcement be made aware that the ACLU, which is despised by many people and called a terrorist organization, sent letters regarding a highly sensitive issue (Christmas celebrations)? If there's a "suspicious" package or vehicle near ACLU offices, wouldn't it be a good idea for law enforcement to know that the ACLU recently (and lawfully) pissed off a bunch of people? If they receive a box that reads, "Celebrate This!" might it be useful to know that they sent the letters?

Was there a suspicious package or vehicle?

This is quite a strained bit of reasoning. Perhaps if there was an anti-ACLU protest, that would make sense.

Obama pisses off far more people in that category than the ACLU does. They're not updating the board with, "Obama to give major address. Expect angry rednecks to break ****."

Public gatherings may be scrutinized by law enforcement because of the practical implications. Mass mailings don't have similar effects.

Once again, present evidence that it's routine for schools to receive letters advising them to follow the law.

So you think they were put on the list because of the content? Now you're wading into dangerous Constitutional waters. If that's why they were on the board, expect a lawsuit.

They said it was a mistake. I would, too, if it would get the ACLU off my back. It's just not worth fighting the battle to defend it since the notice already went out and it will hit the news anyway. The goal was accomplished. Why get into a pissing match? I don't know that's what happened, but it's entirely plausible.

I agree. There are many plausible explanations. My arguments have merely been procedural: something odd happened. There is probably cause to conclude that the event breached an organization's first amendment rights (not clear and convincing evidence, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). Ergo, Tennessee needs to explain.

Beyond that, I have no strong conclusions concerning the facts.