Terror Watch List Swells to More Than 755,000

rdavison writes "According to a USA Today story, the terror watch list has swollen to 755,000 with 200,000 people per year being added since 2004. Adding about 548 people daily every day of the year does not seem to lend itself to a manual process with careful deliberation given or double checking being done for each person added. It seems to suggests that data is being mined from somewhere to automatically add names to the list."

Comments

Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Ckwop]

As the Glasgow "terrorists" so brilliantly displayed, anybody can be a terrorist. All it takes is a car, a bunch of primitive explosive, flammable material and the motivation to endanger human life.

In my view, after September 11th the United States should have responded by doing one thing: Passing regulations that ensure that the cockpits of passenger aircraft are unable to be accessed from the passenger carrying part of the plane.

That's a proportionate response to the threat.

In reality, the terrorist threat is a several orders of a magnitude less than being killed by heart-disease. It's my view that in any problem solving situation, you should seek to solve the worst problem first and the smallest problem last.

The problem from where I'm sitting is that billions are being spent on a tiny fraction of deaths that occur in our countries. Where are the billions of dollars of funding to research heart-disease treatment, improving car safety, cancer treatments or the plethora of other much more likely ways you'll meet your sticky end?

What makes this irrational reaction so much worse is that we're selling our rights down the river for a false sense of security. If somebody passes me in the street and decides they want to kill me, there is nothing the long-arm of the state can do to stop them. I will likely die and the fact the person who killed me will spend a considerable time in prison is of little solace.

There are enough nut cases in the world to ensure that the chances of being killed in such a fashion are always going to be none zero. We all choose to walk about the street with our heads held high because we're not going to let that threat intimidate us. So why are we being intimidated by nutters who want to kill not just one person but quite a few of us?

It reminds me of the story of an elderly women in Warrington interviewed just after the IRA bomb detonated there, killing a young boy. The reporter asked why she was still shopping despite a bomb going off and she defiantly replied: "The Germans didn't stop me shopping so the Irish certainly won't."

Defiance is not giving away your freedom. Defiance is refusing to give away your freedom even if you life is at risk. We only need to look at those brave monks in Burma a few weeks ago to see what real defiance looks like. We've lost our back-bone and passed all sorts of onerous laws because we're afraid. We're pathetic and afraid.

When are we going to stand up and say - "To hell with stupid incompetent security. I want my freedom and I want it now."

Simon

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

How are you meant to solve the biggest problem first when the biggest problem is a group of people who won't be happy until they achieve 100% victory? Terrorists aren't just some FPS enemy who will run at you and self destruct because they feel like it, they have feelings, thoughts and opinions, some of which are correct and some of which are incorrect but which is which will depend on your personal view. How are you meant to deal with people who have lost their families, have nothing in life and been convinced through pure hatred that they must take down invading armies in Iraq and their life is meaningless enough that they are happy to die for it?

We're not talking "oh you bad terrorist, please stop" we're talking about people crawling up the wall with pure unrefined rage, these people aren't going to be won over no matter how hard you try, they are more zealous than any paladin could ever dream of, purely because they have nothing left to lose as they lost it all already. They believe in their cause 100% and while some will lose the rage and see their mistake (or not depending on your view) most of them will never do so, no matter how hard you try.

So how do you deal with people like this? They have nothing to lose either way, if they die it's relief from their sorrows and hatred, if they live then they have absolutely nothing and want revenge for their pain. Look at global warming, people keep saying "we need to reduce our carbon footprint" and yet people refuse to change their ways when they have pretty much nothing to lose for it, how the hell are you going to get zealots to change if you can't get the average Joe to change from leaving a light on?

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[djmurdoch]

It's my view that in any problem solving situation, you should seek to solve the worst problem first and the smallest problem last.

That's not a good strategy. You don't go for the biggest fruit first, you go for the low hanging fruit. (You can choose the worst problem among the easy ones if you like, but don't ignore the easy ones because they're not as bad as the hard ones.)

From the point of view of Homeland Security, they're much more likely to be successful at stopping terrorist attacks than they would be at curing heart disease. You're right that their measure of success is bizarre, but under that measure, what they're doing is working.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Khomar]

If this trend of losing liberties concerns you, I suggest you research Ron Paul and his positions. He is the only Republican candidate who is committed to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties. The others all seem intent on continuing down the same path G.W. Bush has been, and the leading Democrats do not look much better.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[logru]

Read GP post again. They've won against the government. You could say that by proxy they have won since people are now afraid of their own governments.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Conanymous Award]

What just goes on to show how ridiculous those "security measures" at airports are. You aren't allowed to take nail clippers or paper scissors onboard, but booze in glass bottles (which make highly convenient and effective weapons once broken) are? Well, money talks, B$ walks...

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[CmdrGravy]

Even more ridiculous is that in many airports once you've been through the customs shakedown and security check you get to the duty free area where most restaurants have plenty of nice steel knives and forks, I've even seen steak knives but the ordinary ones can easily be sharpened up to make them more deadly if you really wanted to.

I'm fairly sure I've seen penknives and similar things for sale in duty free as well.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Tom]

If anyone has a good picture of that ad, I'll send you ten bucks (PayPal, or buy something from Amazon or whatever). I'm serious. That's one hell of an image.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[An Onerous Coward]

After that big Blackwater shooting back in mid-September, I remember reading an analysis of the tactics they used to protect the convoys under their care. It basically said that if you multiplied the number of civilians who were shot at or run off the road by each convoy by the number of convoys that travel through Baghdad every day, by the number of friends and family who heard the tale, and you had the number of hearts and minds lost by Blackwater.

Of course, Blackwater is paid for successful trips, and not fined for any feelings hurt along the way. So they use "any means necessary," even if those means are making it harder to fight the broader war. Our actual soldiers are generally much more PR-savvy, but it's hard for civvies to tell the difference between the groups. It was a pretty good argument for putting Blackwater under military command, if nothing else.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Jon Abbott]

As the current nutjob officeholder has shown, people will say anything to get elected. Once they get into office, all bets are off. I think Ron Paul is the most consistent and honest person running. Through almost 20 years in Congress,

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket (trip).
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Skjellifetti]

In Columbus, OH, we have an artist who has been posting guerrilla signs and adverts around town. My favorite is a takeoff on the city signs that read "No Parking During Snow Emergency." The artist's version looks the same but reads "No Thinking During National Emergency."

The same artist replaced some adverts in a local Hilton Hotel with ads that featured a half-topless, not-so-classy Paris Hilton and read, "Pampered and Privileged: For over 80 years the Hilton name has been synonymous with elegance and class. A tradition that continues today."

USA

[ilovegeorgebush]

God bless America....No, seriously...

I threw the figures from the article into OO Calc quickly. It seems the rise is quite linear, and the total additions per year increasing somewhat from May 2005. Anything significant happen during May 2005 and 2007? :)

That's A Lot of Terrorists

[Ed Almos]

Assuming a population of six billion on the planet that means that 1 in 8000 is on the watchlist. That's a lot of terrorists.

Ed Almos

DDOS the list by overloading it?

[OneDeeTenTee]

Is there some easy and legal way to get on the list or to put other people on it?

Re:growth industry

[Rocketship Underpant]

It's pretty clear there will never be a process for removing names from the list or auditing the list.

However, if you Americans elect Ron Paul as president, the list will just disappear altogether, along with the secret military prisons and the warrantless wiretaps.

Re:While there's still time

[bhima]

I got disgusted with America years ago and left. I think you discount Canada & Europe too quickly and I think I would look closely at the UK and Australia before moving there because they both appear to have social problems that the US has.

I *really* like living in a smallish city in Europe. My family is subjected to fewer of the myriad of minor prejudices that exist (compared to Atlanta). The traffic is lighter and the drivers more disciplined. Despite living in city which is supposedly 96% catholic I am not subjected to any sort of wackiness that is so popular from the religious right in the US these days. There is *no* telemarketing. I worked out a contract where I have 6 weeks paid and 12 weeks unpaid holiday. It's easy to be Green. It's easy to bicycle. It's easy to buy primarily local food stuffs. It's possible to have a mostly positive political conversation with people with significantly disparate views and no one is accused of hating Europe or Austria. No one cares what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom or wants to make a law about it. The government isn't spying on me. Public works are properly funded so we don't have bridges collapsing nor have we completely run out of water. The beer is better.

I could go on for hours...

One more thing.... The ISP with the really, really fast fiber doesn't do intrusive traffic shaping... Yet.

Bottom line there are a lot of really, really cool places in the world to live. Sure not all of them are primarily English speaking and there is no perfect place but you shouldn't let that slow you down.

List should be made public

[shlepp]

This terror watch list should be made public, so anyone can see who is on it and if they themselves are on it. If your name is on something, you have all the right in the world to look at it.

Well guess what fellow Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I found out recently that I, too, am on this list of so called "undesirables".

I don't know, maybe I should just live up to their expectations? I sure feel like doing it.

I am a higher member of an AFA group in an unnamed US state. I'm not going to say anything further, but it's definitely the reason, I'm 99% sure of that. Someone that doesn't like what I have to say has been listening and commenting. Apparently all you need is an officers "recommendation". Heh, I win the prize.

I guess dissent really is evil in the minds of these pigs. Or perhaps it's something more sinister...? Perhaps they know they're bastards, and this really is one of the first steps toward a despotism/fascist state.

Good luck, my friends. Or should I call you my fellow terrorists?

Re:wasting time

[superpulpsicle]

While you joke about it. This is how every totalitarian government starts. They label some group that needs to be eliminated, and courage citizens to help wipe them off the face of the earth. Usually after awhile that group becomes more famous, more well known and more powerful. Before you know it everyone is on the list and the groups becomes blurred. And you eventually don't know what side you are on.

Re:I'll Play

[Khomar]

First, it should be noted that Ron Paul does not himself claim to be a true Libertarian as he recognizes that many of his positions are contrary to the standard Libertarian platform.

Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.

The question here is really whose rights are we protecting. This is talking about the rights of illegal immigrants. They are not citizens of the United States, so they do not automatically get the rights specifically reserved for citizens of our country. While you may disagree with the proposal, it is not an attack on the liberties set forth by the Constitution.

Whether or not these are good policies is beside the point. They are targeted tax-breaks to a select population; it creates a special new privileged class who pay a lesser amount of taxes, and schools are already big benefactors of the state's treasury outlays. Those who are not within this privileged group, must shoulder a higher tax burden to aid those who are members of the group. It also seems unjust that persons who have chosen not to procreate would be forced to bear any of the costs of others' reproduction. Wealth redistribution by any name is just as evil.

Ron Paul has stated that he wants to abolish the income tax altogether which would end the redistribution of wealth permanently. At that point, these laws would be rendered moot. In the meantime, he wants to give some tax cuts to people who really need them while also reducing the burden on all tax payers by reducing the size of government.

Paul is attempting to coerce his will over evolving standards of sexuality in society through a method of legislative gangsterism, which would elevate the power of Congress higher than its proper place at the cost of the judiciary. While he's at it, he would nullify the privileges or immunities and due process of law clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, but this would not be an equal across the board gutting of it either, as Paul uses the Fourteenth to justify another of his proposed bills. This is also diametrically opposed to the Sexuality and Gender Plank of The LP.

Not at all. Consider that just as these keeps courts from ruling for homosexual rights, it also protects the courts from ruling against them as well.

This is god-damned insane. Here Paul is attempting to define a fetus at conception as a person under the due process clause of fourteenth amendment. It would be the greatest entitlement program ever instituted, and would inhibit the liberty of all Female American Citizens. It would also mean that the Federal Government would be intimately involved with the private affairs of all citizens, acting as a coercive watchdog, and there would be many many new crimes with which the state would then use to prosecute the citizenry. The state should not be in the business of either funding, nor prohibiting abortions; it is a question of personal morality, as well as personal health.

I really don't understand how this position is "insane". Is it better to kill defenseless babies simply because they have yet to leave the womb? My wife just recently gave birth to a beautiful baby boy who was three months premature. What was the difference between my son when he was born and that of another baby who was still in the womb at the same duration of gestation? None. But we call one a human and one expendable. Is it really such

Re:I know.

[Sique]

I like to use the comparition with the deaths by choking on a fishbone.
The numbers for Germany are:

700 deads/yr by fishbone choking.
3-4 deads/yr by terrorism.

Basicly eating non filleted fish is about 200 times as dangerous as terrorism.