March 28, 2005
Inside The Mind Of A Local Terrorism 'Expert'
Gary Perlstein's Real Views On Abuse Of Power
One of the few local stories about Portland's most-recent development regarding the Joint Terrorism Task Force to which he haven't linked is this KXL report. We're getting to it now because over the past few days we became interested to learn something about a particular quoted individual.
KXL terror expert Gary Pearlstein thinks it's a bad move. "It's a showdown between the City Council and the FBI. The City Council is going to lose and that mean's Portland is going to lose."
Our initial research yielded very little, but as it turned out that's because KXL managed to misspell the name of their own expert. As it turns out, it isn't Gary Pearlstein, but Gary Perlstein. We discovered this mainly because a friend of ours, we learned, is taking Perlstein's "Perspectives On Terrorism" course at Portland State University.
In the main, Perlstein's pet bugaboo is so-called eco-terrorism -- a term used by some in order to equate property damage and violent vandalism with things such as flying airplanes into buildings and murdering 3,000 people. But that's not actually the point on which we wish to focus.
First, we should mention this Willamette Week story from 2002, which is a pretty damned thorough smackdown of Perlstein's positioning as an expert. Read through it all, and you'll see a pattern of actual terrorism experts making two points: They have no idea who Perlstein is, and they seem to view many of his conclusions as, well, specious if not outright wrong.
But we should get down to the issue at hand, which is Perlstein's comment to KXL about Portland and the JTTF. At its core, the JTTF debate is a public policy discussion about what amount and kind of local oversight is adequate and sufficient to ensure that Portland Police Bureau personnel are not in violation of certain provisions of Oregon law.
In other words, it's about trying to prevent potential abuses of power before they happen rather than having to react to them only after the fact, presuming we ever learn about them at all.
So the relevant thing here is to see whether or not Perlstein has ever had anything to say on the subject of abuses of power. As it turns out, in fact, he has. In fact, it was less than one year ago, in an article in The Spokesman-Review (Google cache) about a college student acquitted after being charged under the USA PATRIOT Act.
Gary Perlstein, an emeritus professor who will teach a course on cyber-terrorism next winter at Portland State University, sided with the jury, saying, "Based upon what I read in the paper, they had not convinced me that it was terrorism."
Perlstein said the outcome of the case "definitely hurts" the Justice Department, "and hopefully they will learn from it and investigations will be better, and not-guilty people will not have to suffer because of it."
So it's clear from this (as well as from his comments about the Brandon Mayfield case) that Perlstein is well aware of actual abuses of power under the use of Federal law enforcement.
But you have to keep reading in order to see Perlstein take a sudden and very sharp turn off a very precipitous cliff.
"The fact that a person was under suspicion because he was a Muslim, used a computer, transferred large sums of money, that's fine. I want people to investigate that," Perlstein said. "But it sounds like from what I've heard, there never should've been an arrest made. He never should've been taken into custody."
Take a deep breath for a moment, then come back and re-read the first part of that quote. ""The fact that a person was under suspicion because he was a Muslim, used a computer, transferred large sums of money, that's fine," Perlstein says in that article. "I want people to investigate that."
Abuse of innocent people via arrest and prosecution is something Perlstein apparently rejects. But abuse of innocent people by investigating them for spurious and illegitimate reasons, that's okay with him.
Despite his acknowledgement that the student in that case was wrongfully prosecuted by Federal authorities, and despite his acceptance in the other linked article of the facts of the Brandon Mayfield case, Perlstein is quoted as saying outright that if you're a Muslim, use a computer, and transfer large amounts of money, then you should be investigated.
With all of that in mind, then, this is the point at which we need to revisit the Perlstein quote we began with, as provided to us all by KXL.
KXL terror expert Gary Pearlstein thinks it's a bad move. "It's a showdown between the City Council and the FBI. The City Council is going to lose and that mean's Portland is going to lose."
Pushing for adequate oversight powers in order to ensure that Portland's police officers don't violate an Oregon law intended to protect the civil rights and liberties of Oregonians is a "bad move" according to Perlstein. Apparently, we now know why: He believes its acceptable to investigate Muslims because they do extraordinarily-mundane things such as use computers and transfer money.
Remember all of this next time one of our local news outlets turns to Gary Perlstein to play the role of their "terrorism expert" -- especially if, in the next week or so, they turn to him as KXL did for a comment on the debate over proper oversight of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Comments (11)
allehseya on 28 Mar 2005
Hope it isnt too late for your friend to drop the class.
handsclean on 28 Mar 2005
I suspect it is the "transferring large sums of money" and "muslim" confluence that Perlstein felt was worthy of investigation. Given that it's known that Islamic terrorists have funded their operations in this country by such transfers, I guess I'm a little surprised that anyone would object to the Feds looking into such a combination. I'd be extraordinarily disappointed if those charged with preventing future terrorist activity were not investigating such activity.
And I don't know about you, but while using a computer is an extraordinarily mundane activity, I don't often have occasion to transfer a lot of money around. Most college students I've known have even less such occasion - for the same reason as applies to me: lack of large sums of money. Should the kid have been prosecuted? I don't know enough about the case. Should the transfers have been investigated? You betcha. Investigation does not equal abuse.
USA PATRIOT was bad law, passed in a hurry for Congress to be seen doing something, no two ways about it. It's been abused in that it's been used to pursue investigations that have zero to do with terrorism (drugs, porn, &c.). But the case you're citing here is not such an abuse, and should have been within the scope of even an appropriately-written version of USA PATRIOT. Perlstein's credibility is not damaged by his position in that instance.
JDS on 28 Mar 2005
I would hesitate to hold the Willamette Week story up as a "damning" of Perlstein. It is not a flattering article; on the other hand, it plays much the same game that it criticizes other reporters for: identifying individuals as "experts" and then getting their opinion on something which they may or may not know much about but are willing to comment on. The article notes in a sidebar that two other media experts were contacted for the story, but they went with the first to respond.
More often than not, "the first to respond" is how reporters do business. Particularly TV, which limits itself to persons that it can get on camera within a few hours. Often, to short-circuit the arduous process of tracking down a warm body, they get these experts on contract, so that they have them on speed-dial for any related story as a way of localizing the piece.
Thanks for your dogged tracking of the JTTF, b!X.
allehseya on 28 Mar 2005
And I don't know about you, but while using a computer is an extraordinarily mundane activity, I don't often have occasion to transfer a lot of money around.
While I was travelling abroad there was a lot of money being transferred around -- my paychecks in the US were being accessed one week in one place, another week in a different place. I sent checks to friends to pay bills and when I was in a tough bind I had money sent to me from those friends. I sent pacakages, transferred what the Feds may consider to be 'large sums' of money -- and I used a computer.
When people come here for work, school or through their marriages from abroad -- they send money back home -- students get money sent to them, work here allows people to help out their family and friends back home. It actually is a fairly mundane activity if your home and family and friends are elsewhere. There's nothing inherently suspicious in this activity.
Rather NotSay on 09 Apr 2005
Having taken his "Perspectives on Terrorism" class, I can say that his course is more an opportunity for him to spout anti-Arab drivel than actual teaching. He tries to counterbalance the obvious bias by mentioning the Jewish Defense League from time to time, but it's not hard to see where he stands. He regularly contradicts himself, saying in the defense of Israel that you can't believe what you read in the papers, yet it seems that all his "factual" information comes from the exact same sources. It's a shame that this man is given an opportunity to influence public opinion with his hyper-generalizations.
IFindThings on 14 May 2005
Anyone reading a newspaper or watching television should know they are poor tools to convict someone by. Consider an hour interview condensed to ten seconds or a quarter of a column. Really, if you have problems with Dr. Perlstein's comments, contact him. I have read his book, Perspectives on Terrorism, listened to him in class. I know some of his comments were made for the purpose of making students think (a novel idea in class) not to define his position. I find a majority of the comments made about him in these responses to be patently ignorant, unresearched, and emotionally motivated. This country needs to wake up to the fact that newspapers and television are poor measures of an "Expert." Read his book, talk to him. Far to many lazy and ignorant people adopt as their platform what they read in the papers or watch on TV. They will condemn the source and not question the company who paraphrased the source. Really, isn't that scary. I think Perlstein might have a good and appropriate comment for that.
studentinhisclass on 21 May 2005
taking prof. perlstein's class (unsure if he is a dr.), i've come to believe that really he just wants an audience to whom he can talk. we hear repeatedly about his appearances on news radio or how some such public news source wants his opinion. honestly, i've stopped going to the class because i believe his teaching is entirely personal. he frequently states that he isn't allowing his personal feelings to color his classroom dialogue, however this isn't my experience. he constantly bats down arguments by raising his voice, using solely his 'experience' to cover for any perceived fragmentation in his arguments, besides which he constantly makes religious or racially motivated speeches debasing one or another race/religion, etc.
i am still figuring out how to write a "critical review" of the text without constantly pointing out how idiotic and american view-based the text really is.
JACK PEEK on 22 May 2005
Probing Activities in U.S. Rise Sharply
by Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
20 May 2005: A "sudden surge" of individuals possessing and attempting to use false credentials, badges and in some cases, uniforms to probe key areas within the infrastructure and emergency services of the United States is being reported by federal law enforcement officials. A significant increase in potential terrorist probes is being reported concurrently on three levels as detailed below:
Surveillance & Active Probing of Power Plants, Water Treatment Systems, and other Areas of U.S. Infrastructure
Active Entry Attempts at Hospitals, First Responder Stations (Ambulance & Fire) to Access Information & Assess Response
Electronic Probing of Critical Computer Systems
"Sensitive" reports compiled this week by the Department of Homeland Security are showing a consistent, nationwide increase in attempts to breach security at key locations within the U.S. by individuals using subterfuge and false credentials, according to the report labeled “restricted dissemination.” The report cites a sharp rise in incidents of individuals using fictitious identification who have attempted to gain entry into restricted areas of hospitals, medical facilities, fire stations, and ambulance and rescue stations. In some cases, there have been reports of thefts of various equipment, including biohazard suits and protective clothing.
Also cited in this report is a significant rise in "suspicious activity," further described as "the surveillance and photography" of key elements of our infrastructure, including nuclear and conventional power plants, water treatment plants, chemical storage facilities, gas refineries and storage facilities, bridge structures, train and subway stations, and large office buildings. In some instances, ventilation systems appeared to be the focus of attention.
In situations involving hospitals and key medical support facilities, security has thwarted all “known fraudulent attempts” to gain access to restricted areas or information, according to the report. [Emphasis added]. A number of cases were cited where individuals using fake credentials, once questioned further by internal security, fled upon more detailed questioning. Some imposters have been identified and investigations are in progress.
Regarding reports of active surveillance and photography or videotaping of critical infrastructure, the report states that the “number of incidents of suspicious activity reported to police agencies has risen dramatically since April.” Details regarding these activities were less specific in terms of their disposition.
Attempts to gain access to confidential, proprietary and information described as “sensitive” via computer have also risen sharply. According to specific reports, attempts included both those of “intrusion” as well as those involving individuals conducting pretexts via e-mail. The report describes the latter form of these attempts as “creative” and seeking to exploit human vulnerabilities.
In situations involving individuals engaged in the above activities witnessed by law enforcement, security personnel and others, suspects have been described primarily as well groomed Arab men appearing to be in the 25-40 year-old age group, although men appearing to be of Hispanic origin also accounted for 10-15 percent of the incidents described. Further, a number of suspects were identified as Caucasians within the same general age range.
Everyone in the emergency sector as well as those involved in the security of our critical infrastructure are advised to be on a heightened state of alert for the activities described above.
WOW...but as most who post here would say,RANDY LEONARD for sure...WHATEVER! Know a few folks in the area of security and they think the Professor may know more then say...mayor Potter would ever know.
I reported a guy of middle east origin taking pictures of the airport and the big fuel tanks out on Marine Drive once and the cops jumped on it.
That was 10 days after 911, bet they would be held back now...MUST NOT OFFEND A MUSLIM here.
Stuart Dent on 24 May 2005
The teacher in question is a nutburger. Those who feed off his brand of fear based politics are also nutburgers. Why good money has gone to this hate monger is a mystery. Sit in on any lecture and see for yourself.
torridjoe on 24 May 2005
handsclean Says:
March 28, 2005 at 08:09 AM
I suspect it is the "transferring large sums of money" and "muslim" confluence that Perlstein felt was worthy of investigation. Given that it's known that Islamic terrorists have funded their operations in this country by such transfers, I guess I'm a little surprised that anyone would object to the Feds looking into such a combination.
Considering it's search without probable cause, I'm surprised you're surprised. Is it legal to be Muslim? Yes. Is it legal to transfer money? Yes. Those are really, really weak grounds to hold suspicion, UNLESS you are biasing yourself to believe that being Muslim is evidence of suspicion.
anotherstudent on 27 May 2005
This professor has reasoning ability, even if he sometimes shows traits of a hate/fear monger and does his share of backpedalling and namecalling when faced with dissent. The problem is that he cannot divorce the subject at hand from his personal politics, and has converted his classroom into a soapbox instead of teaching a subject in a linear, analytical fashion. As has been said before, audit the class for yourself and you will see what the deal is.
That being said, he is not a complete loony, and occasionally he raises some good points. Unfortunately, those points which are good often fly above the heads of those in the classroom who lack the ability to reason. For example, he introduced a very anti-muslim opinion piece to the class--one that (sadly I can't find) that suggested that (paraphrasing) christians and jews don't react in the violent ways that muslims do, so there must be something wrong with Islam. The problem is that this article was introduced to spark controversy and debate in an atmosphere that Perlstein had already made inhospitable to debate for some of the more opinionated students. Perlstein himself disagreed with the article, but nobody noticed because managed to do so in such a way that still allowed some of his dimmer students to think otherwise. Many assumed he was passing the article along to spread anti-Muslim sentiment, and those who disagreed did not bother to debate for Islam because they feared the usual kneejerk reaction of the Professor... so noone debated, and half the students walked away with that article in their head, not necessarily disagreeing. This is the kind of line he walks, the thin line between hate and reason, always teetering on the controversial to get that lively classroom vibe without having to deal with matters of substance.
I don't really care about the Professors political views. They differ from mine quite a bit, but that isn't abnormal or wrong. My biggest difficulty with the class is that his political views seem to dominate. Lectures are often disordered, opinionated, and often deal with irrelevant material. The subject of terrorism could be approached in an outlined and more objective form, but this class is more like one non-sequitur rant after another and frankly, is peppered by what I consider to be strange comments, like this: "There are trucks that drive around unprotected full of ANTHRAX!!! Now are you frightened???" or this one "I read an article about a woman who was jogging in Central Park who was raped, and my first notion was 'Why the hell was she jogging alone in Central Park??' Its a battleground!!"