It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IG says Justice misreported some terrorism stats

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

IG says Justice misreported some terrorism stats


www.unpartial.com

By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) — A review of terrorism statistics from the Justice Department shows officials have given Congress slightly incorrect information.

That is the conclusion of an inspector general report released Thursday.

It says Justice reported in 2009 that 512 people were charged with terrorism or terrorism-related crimes for six years after the September 11, 2001, attacks. But the audit showed 544 people were actually charged during that time period. Justice also reported that 319 people were convicted or pleaded guilty to terrorism or re
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
The IG of the DOJ have found that Justice has been fudging their numbers for terrorism cases.I like how the AP goes along with the DOJ spokesman and down plays this.Like every IG report is downplayed,classified or ignored.They pretend to do something when they intend to do nothing.Let's see if anyone in the media pick this up.

www.unpartial.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
if they gave true numbers they'd have to admit how many of their own citizens they have detained ... tortured ... killed to perpetuate the lie they call "war on terror" ... the only terrorists are in d.c and are called president .. senator.. congressman...



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Seriously? You want to make a point out of a six percent error, which is within the statistical standard deviation?

If they had over or under reported a 100 percent error, you'd have a point, but six percent? Either you don't understand standard deviation, or you're just ignoring it. Which is it?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Seriously? You want to make a point out of a six percent error, which is within the statistical standard deviation?

If they had over or under reported a 100 percent error, you'd have a point, but six percent? Either you don't understand standard deviation, or you're just ignoring it. Which is it?


A decent electronic system with minimal human transcription should be correct to within +/- 1.17 cases per million cases. If your bank underreported 6% of your deposits, they would be out of business. DOJ obviously is not taking reporting -- and probably analysis of connections between terrorism cases -- seriously.

A six percent error is outright huge, about what might be expected if records were being kept by hand instead of in databases. This strongly suggests that the DOJ is only maintaining a simple list on paper or an excel spreadsheet. It speaks volumes about possible system wide incompetence! (What's new? )

Unless it is only the reporting to Congress that the DOJ doesn't take seriously, there are probably much bigger holes in the entire system related to collating, analyzing, and interpreting the relationships between the cases. If it's just reporting to Congress, whomever is in charge of the reporting should be removed. Congress needs to understand what is going on to oversee and properly fund DOJ efforts related to terrorism. It's a big deal.

BTW: it's very obvious that the phrase "standard deviation" in the post I quoted from is being tossed around without a shred of understanding of anything statistical. What is being reported is a simple count of the total population of under-reported cases -- in essence a census. With only 544 "members" in the population, there should be 0 errors.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Seriously? You
want to make a point out of a six percent error, which is within the statistical standard deviation?

If they had over or under reported a 100 percent error, you'd have a point, but six percent? Either you don't understand standard deviation, or you're just ignoring it. Which is it?


it effect lives... human lives are valuable .... not to be thrown away lightly or sacrificed so that corrupt bastards can continue their campaign of oppression .. terror ... and murder for profit both domestically and abroad ... those points are living .. breathing .. people.. not just statistics on some damn government chart... they deserve respect and dignity as human beings...



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I have this to say. A government body, no matter what its purpose may be, has the tools EASILY within reach, to report on numbers this small, with total and complete accuracy. It has the capacity to record, store, and recall everything about its activities, and those caught up in them, right down to which hand a person wipes with, and which they write with.

There is no excuse for the Justice department having ANY deviation from accuracy in this report, since the numbers it is dealing with here are below one thousand people. Your average sized school has to be able to at least carry a register which is more accurate than this, to facilitate accurate emergancy planning, and evacuation in case of fire or other dangerous situations. Therefore, an agency or organisation whose main purpose is the detention, tracking, and containment of criminals, MUST have better or at least equal capacity to track groups of detainees.

If it does not, then there would be nothing stopping people from simply leaving the system all together without notice. That is not an effective way to track what are supposed to be dangerous people, who allegedly pose a threat to the national security of a nation.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Why would anyone use Standard Deviation for reporting something like this - it is not the appropriate measurement - you'd really expect something like 100% accuracy in something like this.

This suggests to me like either someone has attempted to cook the books or that someone is incredibly incompetent - I'm not really sure which scenario I'd prefer to be true.
edit on 7/9/12 by Freeborn because: clarity



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Seriously? You want to make a point out of a six percent error, which is within the statistical standard deviation?

If they had over or under reported a 100 percent error, you'd have a point, but six percent? Either you don't understand standard deviation, or you're just ignoring it. Which is it?


As was stated, I will gladly take 6% of your paycheck and we will call it a day, no big deal.

I would love an explanation of how this occured. It could be benign, or not so much.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join