Originally posted by: maverick44
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: maverick44
5) By being a neuroscientist doesnot make you dangerous.
Yes, apparently it can:
was carrying detailed chemical-biological radiological weapon information when she was arrested in Afghanistan.
-snip-
Fern
Fern,
She has a degree in cognitive neuroscience... ie how the brain recognizes certain images...
Regardless of whether you believe whether or not the charges are true... her education never qualified her to be a terrorist... not to say that institutions like MIT or bandeis prepare you on how to make a bomb
I don't know if the charges are true (more on this below)
I don't know much about neuroscience, so I looked into it before posting yesterday. I saw where that area of science has been weaponized - neurotoxins etc. So the "detailed chemical - biological weapon" statement seemed in the realm of possibility given her educational background.
In general, I don't see any good reason to exclude someone as a terrorist based on their educational background, and certainly not here in this specific situation either. The whole myth that terrorists are uneducated poor people has been debunked; hence her (high) education and wealthy background do not exclude her either. Neither do they count as evidence against her IMO.
The initial *flavor* of this story seems to be along the common theme of GWB's zeal in antiterrorism has led to violations of human rights and confinement of innocent people etc.
But RightisWrong's observation is interesting IMO and not given adequate notice.
These people were on the FBI's radar screen before 9-11 happened, and GWB had only been in office a few months.
So, they were scrutinized before the Patriot Act, before any amendments to FISA, before any 911 Commission recommendations were implemented, and before GWB made any appointments to either the FBI or CIA.
So, they came of notice and were (likely) investigated under the Clinton Admin machinery.
That leads me to think either:
That things (gathering of info about night vision goggle purchases etc) were done under court order etc. and are likely legitimate, or
The kinds of stuff the GWB admin are blamed for already existed under prior administrations, the primary difference being laws passed in attempts to make such practices legal and resulting in publicity for them. I.e., before GWB they were done, but it was kept secret.
I'm inclined to go with the former here.
I'm also a bit surprised there was apparently a more active anti-terrorist program in the US prior to 9-11 than is generally acknowledged.
In light of the above I cannot at this time jump to the conclusion that this woman is a totally innocent person whisked away and kept in a secret prison etc. The timeline just doesn't fit as her lawyers explain it. Perhaps were this done after, say, 2004, it might be more believable. But this is all said to start well before the changes in law/policy and the Iraq War and ramp up of the WOT.
It's just a very weird story and I'll leave it at that until I hear more (accurate) factual details about the case.
Fern