Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Oregon Doctors Warned That a Killer and Rapist Would Likely Attack Again. Then the State Released Him. Then He Murdered Again.

leave a comment »

Oregon needs some attention. Jayme Fraser reports in ProPublica:

In September 2015, Oregon’s Psychiatric Security Review Board faced a decision with potentially momentous consequences for public safety. Sitting before them in a small hearing room at the state hospital was Charles Longjaw, a 50-year-old killer and rapist judged to be guilty except for insanity.

A state psychologist warned that Longjaw was likely to resume his abuse of alcohol and drugs if the board released him from strict supervision. Once drunk or high, he would be unable to restrain impulses that had previously led to a brutal murder, an attempted murder and a vicious rape. He would attack again if “he feels disrespected or threatened in some fashion,” she wrote. “The victim could be a stranger or a friend.”

For reasons that have much to do with the limits of Oregon law, the three board members present that day decided to release Longjaw, regardless of the danger. Under the relevant state statute, the board concluded, he could no longer be classified as criminally insane.

“You are discharged,” the chairwoman said.

“Thank you,” Longjaw replied at the end of a nearly two-hour hearing in which he had not testified.

A little more than a year later, Longjaw was in handcuffs facing new murder charges.

About 6 p.m. on a November night in 2016, he repeatedly plunged a knife into the stomach and arm of a homeless man as they argued on a downtown Portland sidewalk. He walked away after the attack, leaving the man mortally wounded.

Longjaw is not the only person judged criminally insane in Oregon who was charged with violent crimes shortly after being released from state control.

Two weeks after he was arrested, the state board met again to consider the release of another man doctors had determined to be a danger to the public — Anthony W. Montwheeler. And just as in the Longjaw case, the Psychiatric Security Review Board ruled it had no grounds to hold Montwheeler under state law. After 19 years of overseeing Montwheeler’s treatment and movements, the board ruled he was free to go on Dec. 7, 2016.

Four weeks later, Montwheeler killed two people and severely injured a third near the Oregon farming town of Vale, prosecutors have charged.

Longjaw and Montwheeler were free because the state board itself is handcuffed by laws that haven’t been modified despite such high-profile cases.

Like most states, Oregon does not imprison people who commit crimes while in a diminished mental state. A court can send someone for mental health treatment rather than prison if he or she could not understand or follow the law because of a mental illness.

Over time, Oregon lawmakers and judges have narrowed the conditions covered by a plea of “guilty except for insanity,” eliminating defendants who only suffer from personality disorders and psychosis caused by substance use. Legislators intended to make it more difficult to escape criminal prosecution.

As a result, some people previously judged legally insane suddenly were eligible for release.

Longjaw was one such case. Doctors had said his mental illness arose from his abuse of alcohol and drugs, a condition that no longer qualified for an insanity plea.

Board officials said that under Oregon law they had no duty to warn the public of Longjaw’s release and no authority to monitor him once he was sent into the community. In interviews, an agency official said no one tracks the conduct of people like Longjaw once they are released from supervision.

The Malheur Enterprise has reported deeply on Montwheeler, who is awaiting trial and has said he intends to rely on the insanity defense again. The Oregon newspaper, based in Vale, has partnered with ProPublica to take a close look at this system. Together, the Enterprise and ProPublica are investigating how often someone found criminally insane leaves state supervision and returns to crime, why the state released people in the face of repeated warnings they were dangerous, and what changes might better protect the public without sacrificing the rights of those with mental illness or disabilities. The reporting team is reviewing the records of more than 600 people that the Psychiatric Security Review Board has placed in community programs or set free over the last 10 years.

Board members, appointed by the governor, declined multiple interview requests. Chairwoman Elena Balduzzi, a Portland psychologist who treats sex offenders, said in February that it was not the job of board members to speak to the public. She is the only current member who was involved in the 2015 decision to release Longjaw.

But in response to written questions, the board said it is “always on the lookout for ways to improve the system.” Asked to identify internal reviews or changes as a result of the Longjaw case, the board provided none.

“Bad — and sometimes serious — outcomes occur in many arenas, even when everything is done appropriately under applicable law and other guidelines,” the board wrote. . .

Continue reading.

Read also the ProPublica article Oregon Board Explains Why It Repeatedly Released Killer From Psychiatric Hospital.”

And definitely read “How an Oregon Weekly Forced Release of Key Records in Murder Cases.” That articles describes the state’s efforts to cover up what they had done.

A free investigative press is vital. The government often has its own best interests at heart, not the best interests of the public. (Cf. Mick Mulvaney, Donald Trump, Scot Pruitt, et al.)

Written by LeisureGuy

25 April 2018 at 12:59 pm

Mick Mulvaney’s confession highlights the corrosive influence of money in politics

leave a comment »

Mick Mulvaney, despicable man, explicitly stated that he ran his office when he was a Representative as a “pay-to-play” racket: he simply would not meet with any lobbyist who did not contribute money. He was, in effect, selling access (much as Tom DeLay did). James Hohmann reports in the Washington Post:

THE BIG IDEA: Mick Mulvaney said the quiet part out loud.

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said Tuesday at the American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

Mulvaney, who represented South Carolina in the House from 2011 until President Trump appointed him as director of the Office of Management and Budget in 2017, told the 1,300 industry executives and lobbyists that they should push lawmakers hard to pursue their shared agenda.

He told the crowd that trying to sway legislators is one of the “fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy.” For good measure, he insisted that he always made time for his constituents. “If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions,” Mulvaney said.

To be clear, not all members of Congress operate this way. Many offices take pride in meeting with people no matter how much money they have given or might in the future. But Mulvaney’s comment appears emblematic of a mentality that pervades Trump’s orbit.

Multiple Republicans admitted last fall during the debate over tax cuts that they worried about losing campaign contributions if they didn’t vote for the legislation. “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again,’” Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), the first member of Congress to endorse Trump’s presidential campaign, told The Hill in November.

The president himself has repeatedly said that he views politics as transactional. “As a businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal in 2015. “As a businessman, I need that.”

He was asked about that quote during a GOP primary debate. “You better believe it,” Trump replied. “I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me.”

— Mulvaney’s comments are especially notable because he’s been viewed for several years, by supporters and critics alike, as one of Wall Street’s best friends in Washington. “He was tapped by President Trump in November to temporarily run the [CFPB], in part because of his promise to sharply curtail it,” Glenn Thrush notes in the New York Times. “Since then, he has frozen all new investigations and slowed down existing inquiries by requiring employees to produce detailed justifications. He also sharply restricted the bureau’s access to bank data … And he has scaled back efforts to go after payday lenders, auto lenders and other financial services companies accused of preying on the vulnerable. [Mulvaney received nearly $63,000 from payday lenders for his campaigns.] But he wants Congress to go further and has urged it to wrest funding of the independent watchdog from the Federal Reserve, a move that would give lawmakers — and those with access to them — more influence on the bureau’s actions.”

Mulvaney also announced during yesterday’s speech to the bankers he will likely end public access to a database used by consumers to file complaints against financial institutions. “The CFPB database has drawn 1.5 million consumer complaints on financial companies and products since its launch in 2011,” the Wall Street Journal’s Yuka Hayashi reports. “It includes the names of the companies that receive complaints and detailed consumer experiences. Advocates say having the information available to the public makes the portal effective by putting pressure on companies to respond to consumers. Businesses say it spreads unverified negative information about them. … Mr. Mulvaney said the bureau would continue to maintain a toll-free number and a website to gather consumer complaints and forward them to companies, but the database would be hidden from public view.”

— Democratic members of Congress are accusing Mulvaney of practicing pay-to-play politics. “This is supposed to be a government by the people, for the people. Not a government of the thieves and the money changers. Mick Mulvaney is a disgrace,” tweeted Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who sits on the Finance Committee.

Continue reading. There’s a lot more. Warning: Reading the entire column may cause feelings of nausea.

Written by LeisureGuy

25 April 2018 at 11:18 am

North Korea nuclear test site largely unusable

leave a comment »

The real reason Kim Jong-un has discontinued nuclear testing (for now). John Bowden reports in The Hill:

A North Korean nuclear test site recently shuttered by Pyongyang is unusable and will cause a catastrophe if another test occurs, according to a new report.

Chinese scientists studying the damage at the Punggye-ri facility estimate that another test at the facility will lead to “environmental catastrophe,” The Wall Street Journal reports.

Scientists say North Korea’s most recent test caused a partial collapse of a cavity inside the mountain facility, which would be further exacerbated by another blast, the newspaper added.

“The occurrence of the collapse should deem the underground infrastructure beneath mountain Mantap not be used for any future nuclear tests,” reads an abstract for the study published by the University of Science and Technology of China, according to the Journal.

North Korea experts at Johns Hopkins University, however, told the Journal that parts of the facility could still be fully functional and that testing could resume.

President Trump has touted the cessation of North Korea’s nuclear tests as a victory ahead of his planned talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un later this year. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

25 April 2018 at 10:45 am

Chiseled Face Sherlock with Vie-Long brush, Edwin Jagger, and Phoenix Artisan Cavendish

leave a comment »

The Green Ray brush with its horsehair-colored (synthetic) knot made me think of my actual horsehair knot, this Vie-Long. When using a horsehair brush, I do wet the knot well and then let the brush stand while I shower.

The lather from Chiseled Face’s Sherlock was excellent, and the Edwin Jagger did a fine job. A splash of Phoenix Artisan’s Cavendish finished the job.

I ran late because of my new carbon-steel breakfast pan. It turned out that the instructions that come with the pan have you do the seasoning step (cooking oil, salt, and potato peels) twice, so this morning I had to go out for a couple of potatoes and do the seasoning the second time—and then cook breakfast.

But the pan is terrific. It gets hot more easily than the Teflon-lined pan because the Teflon layer acts as insulation (which is why you can’t really sear things in the traditional nonstick pans). And after the seasoning, this pan really was nonstick. I love it. Great purchase.

Written by LeisureGuy

25 April 2018 at 10:24 am

Posted in Daily life, Shaving

Does anyone have the right to sex?

leave a comment »

From BBC News:

A van driver accused of killing 10 people in Toronto posted to Facebook minutes before the attack to praise killer Elliot Rodger and refer to the misogynistic “incel” Reddit group.

. . .  Mr Minassian’s Facebook post, which the social network has confirmed as real, praised Elliott Rodger, a 22 year old from California who killed six people in a shooting rampage through Isla Vista, California in 2014 before turning the gun on himself.

It read: “The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”

The term “incel” refers to a now-banned group on the message site Reddit, used by Rodger, where young men discussed their lack of sexual activity and attractiveness to women – often blaming women for the problem.

“Chads and Stacys” refers to attractive men and women who are perceived as better than or unavailable to “incels”, which is short for “involuntary celibate”. . .

Continue reading.

With that in mind, Amia Srinivasan has an interesting essay in the London Review of Books:

On 23 May 2014, Elliot Rodger, a 22-year-old college dropout, became the world’s most famous ‘incel’ – involuntary celibate. The term can, in theory, be applied to both men and women, but in practice it picks out not sexless men in general, but a certain kind of sexless man: the kind who is convinced he is owed sex, and is enraged by the women who deprive him of it. Rodger stabbed to death his two housemates, Weihan Wang and Cheng Hong, and a friend, George Chen, as they entered his apartment on Seville Road in Isla Vista, California. Three hours later he drove to the Alpha Phi sorority house near the campus of UC Santa Barbara. He shot three women on the lawn, killing two of them, Katherine Cooper and Veronika Weiss. Rodger then went on a drive-by shooting spree through Isla Vista, killing Christopher Michaels-Martinez, also a student at UCSB, with a single bullet to the chest inside a Deli Mart, and wounding 14 others. He eventually crashed his BMW coupé at an intersection. He was found dead by the police, having shot himself in the head.

In the hours between murdering three men in his apartment and driving to Alpha Phi, Rodger went to Starbucks, ordered coffee, and uploaded a video, ‘Elliot Rodger’s Retribution’, to his YouTube channel. He also emailed a 107,000-word memoir-manifesto, ‘My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger’, to a group of people including his parents, his therapist, former schoolteachers and childhood friends. Together these two documents detail the massacre to come and Rodger’s motivation. ‘All I ever wanted was to fit in and live a happy life,’ he explains at the beginning of ‘My Twisted World’, ‘but I was cast out and rejected, forced to endure an existence of loneliness and insignificance, all because the females of the human species were incapable of seeing the value in me.’

He goes on to describe his privileged and happy early childhood in England – Rodger was the son of a successful British filmmaker – followed by his privileged and unhappy adolescence in Los Angeles as a short, bad-at-sports, shy, weird, friendless kid, desperate to be cool. He writes of dyeing his hair blond (Rodger was half-white and half-Malaysian; blond people were ‘so much more beautiful’); of finding ‘sanctuary’ in Halo and World of Warcraft; being shoved by a pretty girl at summer camp (‘That was the first experience of female cruelty I endured, and it traumatised me to no end’); becoming incensed by the sex lives of his peers (‘How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half-white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves’); dropping out of successive schools and then community college; and fantasising about a political order in which he ruled the world and sex was outlawed (‘All women must be quarantined like the plague they are’). The necessary result of all this, Rodger said, was his ‘War on Women’, in the course of which he would ‘punish all females’ for the crime of depriving him of sex. He would target the Alpha Phi sorority, ‘the hottest sorority of UCSB’, because it contained ‘the very girls who represent everything I hate in the female gender … hot, beautiful blonde girls … spoiled, heartless, wicked bitches’. He would show everyone that he was ‘the superior one, the true alpha male’.

Late in 2017, the online discussion forum Reddit closed down its 40,000-member ‘Incel’ support group, for ‘people who lack romantic relationships and sex’. Reddit took the action after introducing a new policy of prohibiting content that ‘encourages, glorifies, incites or calls for violence’. What had started out as a support group for the lonely and sexually isolated had become a forum whose users not only raged against women and the ‘noncels’ and ‘normies’ who get to sleep with them, but also frequently advocated rape. A second incel Reddit group, ‘Truecels’, was also banned following the site’s policy change. Its sidebar read: ‘No encouraging or inciting violence, or other illegal activities such as rape. But of course it is OK to say, for example, that rape should have a lighter punishment or even that it should be legalised and that slutty women deserve rape.’

Soon after Rodger’s killings, incels took to the manosphere to explain that women (and feminism) were in the end responsible for what had happened. Had one of those ‘wicked bitches’ just fucked Elliot Rodger he wouldn’t have had to kill anyone. (Nikolas Cruz, who gunned down 17 students and staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on Valentine’s Day, vowed in a comment on a YouTube video that ‘Elliot Rodger will not be forgotten.’) Feminist commentators were quick to point out what should have been obvious: that no woman was obligated to have sex with Rodger; that his sense of sexual entitlement was a case-study in patriarchal ideology; that his actions were a predictable if extreme response to the thwarting of that entitlement. They could have added that feminism, far from being Rodger’s enemy, may well be the primary force resisting the very system that made him feel – as a short, clumsy, effeminate, interracial boy – inadequate. His manifesto reveals that it was overwhelmingly boys, not girls, who bullied him: who pushed him into lockers, called him a loser, made fun of him for his virginity. But it was the girls who deprived him of sex, and the girls, therefore, who had to be destroyed.

Could it also be said that Rodger’s unfuckability was a symptom of the internalisation of patriarchal norms of men’s sexual attractiveness on the part of women? The answer to that question is complicated by two things. First, Rodger was a creep, and it was at least partly his insistence on his own aesthetic, moral and racial superiority, and whatever it was in him that made him capable of stabbing his housemates and his friend a total of 134 times, not his failure to meet the demands of heteromasculinity, that kept women away. Second, plenty of non-homicidal nerdy guys get laid. Indeed part of the injustice of patriarchy, something unnoticed by incels and other ‘men’s rights activists’, is the way it makes even supposedly unattractive categories of men attractive: geeks, nerds, effete men, old men, men with ‘dad bods’. Meanwhile there are sexy schoolgirls and sexy teachers, manic pixie dreamgirls and Milfs, but they’re all taut-bodied and hot, minor variations on the same normative paradigm. (Can we imagine GQ carrying an article celebrating ‘mom bod’?)

That said, it’s true that the kind of women Rodger wanted to have sex with – hot sorority blondes – don’t as a rule date men like Rodger, even the non-creepy, non-homicidal ones, at least not until they make their fortune in Silicon Valley. It’s also true that this has something to do with the rigid gender norms enforced by patriarchy: alpha females want alpha males. And it’s true that Rodger’s desires – his erotic fixation on the ‘spoiled, stuck-up, blonde slut’– are themselves a function of patriarchy, as is the way the ‘hot blonde slut’ becomes a metonym for all women. (Many in the manosphere gleefully pointed out that Rodger didn’t even succeed in killing the women he lusted after, as if in final confirmation of his ‘omega’ sexual status: Katherine Cooper and Veronika Weiss were non ‘hot blondes’ from Delta Delta Delta who just happened to be standing outside the Alpha Phi house.) Feminist commentary on Elliot Rodger and the incel phenomenon more broadly has said much about male sexual entitlement, objectification and violence. But so far it has said little about desire: men’s desire, women’s desire, and the ideological shaping of both.


It used to be the case that if you wanted a political critique of desire, feminism was where you would turn. A few decades ago feminists were nearly alone in thinking about the way sexual desire – its objects and expressions, fetishes and fantasies – is shaped by oppression. (Frantz Fanon and Edward Said’s discussions of the erotics of racial and colonial oppression are important exceptions.) Beginning in the late 1970s, Catharine MacKinnon demanded that we abandon the Freudian view of sexual desire as ‘an innate primary natural prepolitical unconditioned drive divided along the biological gender line’ and recognise that sex under patriarchy is inherently violent; that ‘hostility and contempt, or arousal of master to slave, together with awe and vulnerability, or arousal of slave to master’ are its constitutive emotions. For the radical feminists who shared MacKinnon’s view, the terms and texture of sex were set by patriarchal domination – and embodied in, and sustained by, pornography. (In Robin Morgan’s words, ‘Pornography is the theory, rape is the practice.’) That there were women who seemed capable of achieving pleasure under these conditions was a sign of how bad things were. For some the solution lay in the self-disciplining of desire demanded by political lesbianism. But perhaps even lesbian sex offered no decisive escape: as MacKinnon suggested, sex under male supremacy might well be ‘so gender marked that it carries dominance and submission with it, no matter the gender of its participants’.


Some feminists in the 1980s and 1990s pushed back against the radical critique of sex advanced by MacKinnon and other anti-porn feminists. They insisted on the possibility of genuine sexual pleasure under patriarchy, and the importance of allowing women the freedom to pursue it. MacKinnon disparaged such ‘pro-sex’ feminists for confusing accommodation with freedom, and for buying into the idea that ‘women do just need a good fuck.’ To be fair, MacKinnon’s pro-sex adversaries weren’t arguing that women needed a good fuck – though some came uncomfortably close to suggesting that MacKinnon did. Instead they insisted that women were entitled to sex free of guilt, including heterosexual sex, if they wanted it. In ‘Lust Horizons: Is the Women’s Movement Pro-Sex?’, the essay that inaugurated sex-positive feminism, Ellen Willis set out the basic case against the MacKinnonite critique of sex: that . . .

Continue reading.


Written by LeisureGuy

24 April 2018 at 7:07 pm

Why It Seems Like Everyone Is Always Angry With You

leave a comment »

Your family experience can bias your reading of emotions in others. Heather Murphy reports in the NY Times:

Why do you look so angry? This article hasn’t even begun and already you disapprove. Why can’t I ever win with you? I see it in your face.

If this sounds unfamiliar, good for you. You don’t need this.

For the rest of us, it may be helpful to know that some people seem to have outsize difficulty with reading neutral faces as neutral, even if they are exceptionally accurate at interpreting other facial expressions. Over the past decade psychologists have been piecing together why this occurs.

A study published in March in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships suggests that some people who grew up with parents who fought a lot never learned to properly read those in-between faces, perhaps because they spent so much time watching out for signs of conflict.

“Angry interactions could be a cue for them to retreat to their room,” said Alice Schermerhorn, a developmental psychologist at the University of Vermont and the author of the study. “By comparison, neutral interactions might not offer much information, so children may not value them and therefore may not learn to recognize them.”

These findings build on previous research indicating that depression, anxiety and irritability can affect how a person perceives other people’s faces. It has also been shown that adults who were exposed to violence, neglect or physical abuse in childhood are more likely to see hostility where there is none. This can create a self-reinforcing cycle.

“If you think they look angry then you may respond angrily,” said Abigail Marsh, the director of the Laboratory on Social and Affective Neuroscience at Georgetown University.

What interested Dr. Schermerhorn was whether an even more common issue — conflict between parents — might also take a toll.

She tested this by gathering 99 children, ages nine to 11, who lived in households with their two married biological parents. After the children completed a questionnaire with statements such as, “My parents get really mad when they argue,” she tested their ability to gauge emotions in a series of photos: . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 April 2018 at 6:07 pm

Posted in Daily life, Science

The Curious Case of the Twice-Fired FBI Analyst

leave a comment »

Topher Sanders reports in ProPublica:

On Feb. 22, 2018, when Said Barodi received the letter from the deputy director of the FBI, he expected bad news.

A year earlier, Barodi had been fired as an analyst for the bureau, a job he’d treasured for nearly a decade. Barodi, a Muslim born in Morocco, had been accused of “unprofessional conduct” during an encounter with a federal agent at an airport overseas and of “lack of candor” with a customs agent at Dulles International Airport. Barodi had resisted the agent’s questions because he felt he’d been singled out for his race and religion.

Barodi, however, had won a rare victory when he appealed his firing. The FBI’s Disciplinary Review Board had dismissed two of the three charges and reduced his punishment to a 20-day suspension. He’d been cleared to rejoin the bureau.

But then Barodi waited months for the FBI to complete the basic security check he needed to go back to work. Amid the delays and the silence, fatalism took hold.

The February letter just confirmed the feeling.

“Acting pursuant to my delegated authority,” wrote David Bowdich, second in command at the bureau, “I hereby dismiss you from the rolls of the FBI.”

Barodi had been fired from the FBI for the second time.

Senior officials at the FBI have admitted in recent years that the bureau’s lack of diversity amounts to a crisis, undermining the agency’s effectiveness. Those officials have publicly pledged to do better, and insisted the bureau is eager to sign up people of all races and faiths.

Said Barodi’s career — hired, fired, rehired, and fired again — will not do much to make the FBI’s case.

Barodi had begun working for the FBI while still in college. He’d joined the bureau, he said, in part because he wanted to repay the U.S. for granting him citizenship. His superiors had routinely rated his work as “excellent” in reviews and had even awarded him cash bonuses for his performance. He’d been saluted for mentoring younger analysts.

It’s true Barodi had been outspoken, even confrontational, about the fact that many Muslim agents and analysts believed they were regarded with suspicion by their own colleagues. He’d even engaged in an email exchange with then-FBI Director James Comey about this.

Still, Comey had ended the exchange by thanking Barodi for his “service to the FBI and the nation.”

That was three months before he was fired the first time.

Bowdich would not be interviewed about the second and final dismissal, and the FBI declined to comment on any aspect of the case.

Today, Barodi, 36, supports his family by working for a private security company. He’s launched yet another complaint about how Bowdich and the bureau handled his appeal, but has little confidence he’ll ever work for the FBI again.

He speaks of his career — aspects of which were first reported by The Guardian — with a withering candor.

“We are a target,” Barodi said of himself and other Muslim FBI employees. “We are either suspects or snitches, that’s our station in society. We’re not allowed to be patriotic or serve our country. All that stuff about family and we’re a big family, blah, blah. No, I was not family. I was the enemy within.”

Born in Morocco, Said Barodi came to the U.S. in January 2001 and settled in Washington, D.C.

He worked odd jobs at first, he said, and considered joining the military until 9/11 happened and friends warned him he’d be harassed and mistrusted by his fellow soldiers.

Instead, Barodi enrolled in community college, primarily studying English with the goal of applying to a four-year school.

In 2006, he became a U.S. citizen, and soon after became a student at George Mason University, studying global affairs, with an emphasis on the Middle East and North Africa. He spoke French and multiple dialects of Arabic, and was attracted to the idea of working in counter-terrorism. While at George Mason, Barodi began working as a contractor with the FBI, both in the U.S. and overseas.

In 2009, he formally applied to the bureau as an analyst — typically these employees examine raw data and make sense of it for agents and policy makers.

“They needed a linguist,” he said, “so I applied.”

After 9/11, the FBI had launched a push to recruit Muslim employees. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

24 April 2018 at 3:34 pm

%d bloggers like this: