Unless they have clear physical evidence it’s just hearsay. He said she said. This person said this, another person said that, which can boil down to people who dislike you saying bad things about you to get you fired from your job.

Unless they had some evidence of what he was planning to do, along with evidence of a psychological break or potential to break, what exactly could they have known about this guy that wouldn’t apply to the typical conservative Christian?

“The report emphasized Hasan’s alleged communications with a suspected terrorist — widely thought to be Anwar al-Awlaqi, a radical US-born cleric now being hunted in Yemen as an Al-Qaeda associate.”

They want the excuse to put people who talk to unknown “suspected” terrorists aka “terror suspects” on the targeted individual list. This allows them to target anybody they feel like just by going around and having a vote of hands from people who don’t like what the person had to say. In my opinion this isn’t hard evidence, it’s very subjective and weak.

If he had a website or notebook detailing his plans, if he talks about planning a suicide or terrorist attack, this would be actionable intelligence. If he just talks about violent ideas in public, then you have a lot of people who are Christian who talk just like that. Why focus on this guy? Because he’s muslim?

As much as we want to think there are always red flags or warning signs, some people just snap and theres no smoking gun. A person can have a nervous breakdown, become unstable or suicidal and in an instant go from a “normal” individual, to being on a mission of suicide by cop. It’s not something we can predict by what people say. Behavioral profiling has it’s place, but I see the trend of applying this profiling only to muslims and other minority individuals, which seems to be just like another type of racial profiling. It’s not based on any hard evidence other than a bunch of people pointing the finger at someone who said or thinks something they don’t like?

Extremism of language isn’t the problem. The problem is extremism of action. You have to look at what they are actually doing, not what books they read, what they say, because every terrorist is not going to say the same stuff or read the typical things, so this will never work in practice.

Read “Threat Assessment Teams and Gang Stalking” http://www.targetedindividuals.com/threat-assessment-teams-and-gang-stalking/

“Many Targeted Individuals wonder how they could be placed on a list in the first place? Who has the power or the authority to do such a thing? If you live in a country such as the U.K. your local councils have this ability as displayed in the Jane Clift case. If you live in the U.S. or Canada it might be the task of what’s called a threat assessment team.

This team can be comprised of just a few individuals, to a team of individuals. It depends on the company, educational facility, or community they are representing and what the specific needs are.

Some examples include members of Human Resource, Police Officers, Psychiatrists, Mental Health Professionals, Senior members of the department or division. In some cases there might be just a small team, who then liaison with various other departments. The team members are pre selected, so the team is already in place. The team should generally be trained in assessing workplace violence, violence on campus, what to do, who to call, and they might also be trained in profiling an individual, to enable them to make an assessment of wither an individual is a threat vs a none threat to the environment around them.

The threat assessment teams and who they are comprised of seem to make no concessions or allowances for being evaluated by a team of peers. Eg. In court cases they try to encourage a variety of jurors, so that a person being judged can be evaluated by a peer of their jurors. This in theory allows for fairer trials and outcomes. With the threat assessment teams there are no such guidelines for who the team is comprised of, or what the make up of the team should be. This may or may not account for why the Targeted Individual community has seen an above average targeting of females and minorities. In addition dissenters such as whistle-blowers, extremist site members, and conspiracy site members are also starting to show up above average.

Once in place the team is ready to take tips from the community around them. Generally the team will liaison with Human Resources, The police, Employee Assistance Program, Mental health, and when a report comes in they use these other resources to assist with their assessment of the Target.

Reports can be filed via a form, the reports can be filed anonymously. This means that the person making the accusation need not have any accountability for making a false report. This might not be the case in every area, but in most of the threat assessment guidelines I came across, reports could be filed anonymously. Keep in mind that report are likely primarily initiated by human resources, campus resources, etc. However anonymous reporting of any kind leaves an organization open to abuses of the system that might be difficult to identify or remedy.”