I agree, but it is worth noting that these single phrase labelling isn't all that the NSA knows about these people.
For example, the first one you mentioned ("The U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself") has also had "writings appear on a number of jihadi websites".
Even combining those two things doesn't make that person a terrorist. OTOH I do think it is reasonable that the NSA has a file on a person like that.
Also, note that the NSA does not label them as terrorists - they use the word "Radicalizers".
Finally, the NSA doesn't actually seem to intend to discredit them - these are merely documented plans for how it could be done if required.
> Finally, the NSA doesn't actually seem to intend to discredit them - these are merely documented plans for how it could be done if required.
He wasn't transporting any contraband or illegal drugs in that illegal secret compartment, but it's a good thing we got him, since we're pretty sure he did it once before and he was probably on his way to do it again!
Hu? That analogy doesn't make sense at all. "We" didn't "get" anyone.
This is more like a security guard outside a bank watching someone who turns up at the same time as the cash delivery van every day, stands there watching the cash delivery, and then leaves.
They aren't doing anything wrong, but it would be prudent for the guard to think about some kind of plan if in case that person decides to do more than watch the cash delivered.
I was referencing an article from the other day where someone was arrested for the first time in Ohio for the relatively new law prohibiting (makes a felony) after-market modifications to vehicles, where the modification creates a "secret" or secure stash space. I think the condition on the law was that it was only illegal if it was used or kept "knowingly and with the intent" to transport contraband.
From the article, the car reeked of raw marijuana, but they didn't find any in the compartment. The police said it was a good thing they were able to get him, under the illegal modification law, because he probably was transporting. In the context I hope you can see why I made the reference! :)
A written plan to discredit is evidence of intent, but those NSA creeps won't get any jail time. But by the time any lab gets around to analyzing the Ohio arrested person's car for smells, there's a good chance all of the evidence will have "wafted away." And in the case of NSA, it's just like your analogy, only porn instead of bank vault (and internet instead of guard.)
For example, the first one you mentioned ("The U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself") has also had "writings appear on a number of jihadi websites".
Even combining those two things doesn't make that person a terrorist. OTOH I do think it is reasonable that the NSA has a file on a person like that.
Also, note that the NSA does not label them as terrorists - they use the word "Radicalizers".
Finally, the NSA doesn't actually seem to intend to discredit them - these are merely documented plans for how it could be done if required.