The New York Times is unwilling or incapable of interpreting Gebhardt's memo, but every agent in the field understands perfectly what is demanded: names for the computers. Not the names of "sleeper" terrorists, who by definition cannot be identified. Not the names of criminals and fugitives, the people the existing system is designed to track. And only a fool could believe that, with all the flack the FBI has gotten over its pre-September 11 failures, field agents are slacking in their pursuit of persons who have even the remotest reason for being on watch lists for actual bombers, skyjackers and poisoners of water. That's not what the computers in Washington crave.
The FBI is focused on "preventing attacks," says the NYT article. In the bureau's lexicon, "preventative measures" is a euphemism for surveillance of persons and infiltration of groups that have committed no crime for which they can be arrested. There can be but one result that satisfies headquarters' demand: more names and thicker dossiers. And there is only one way for the agents in the field to produce these items in sufficient quantity; the "anti-terror squads" must revert to their roles as Red Squads, Black Militant Squads and Agitator Squads - under new nomenclature, of course.
The FBI is focused on "preventing attacks," says the NYT article. In the bureau's lexicon, "preventative measures" is a euphemism for surveillance of persons and infiltration of groups that have committed no crime for which they can be arrested. There can be but one result that satisfies headquarters' demand: more names and thicker dossiers. And there is only one way for the agents in the field to produce these items in sufficient quantity; the "anti-terror squads" must revert to their roles as Red Squads, Black Militant Squads and Agitator Squads - under new nomenclature, of course.