Slashdot Mirror
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."
Surely it would be quicker to make an Anti-Terror list of people who are allowed to fly.
liqbase
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
Just add everyone, then implement a whitelist instead. We can issue travel papers and everything, it'll be great.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
On average, 548 people join Slashdot every day.
Coincidence?
...by monitoring "websites" where "subversives" discuss and criticize the "government". Not unlike this one, really...
Its McCarthyism all over again, report your friends, family, and neighbors to the Un-American Activities Committee if you see anything suspicious! And I'm sure this is just as effective as McCarthyism was. We don't have the man power or money to monitor roughly .25% of the population. At $750 per month for a wiretap thats $566 million per month if we were to wiretap all these people.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
If there are 755,000 terrorists in the USA, we're already dead.
What do you want to bet the false positive rate on that is? 99%? That's still 7,000. 99.9%? That still seems a bit high.
If your false positive rate is that high, then why even have a list at all?
One in 400 Americans is a Terrorist. You don't want to be a terrorist... do you? [shot of some guy going to the mall with his family] CONSUMERISM. My Anti-Terror.
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?
ilovegeorgebush
Let's just put everyone on the terror watch list and dispense with the mind games.
Then let's thank God and the powers that be for the terrorist watch list (TWL), because anybody can be on it !
"Wow, Ed got 20 this week, I gotta get more to stay in the game and get the promotion."
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
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
So that's what happens to all those people posting words like "Terrorist", "Bomb", "Bin Laden", "9/11", "Echelon" on Slashdot and all over the intertubes. Luckily I don't do that kinda stuff.
I'm pretty sure you typed something wrong there.. but given the way the Dems have handled themselves since last election, it wouldn't be all that surprising to see them shoot themselves in the foot (yet again).
So, in 175 years or so, 100% of the population of the United States will be on this secret list. I wonder if they'll have a process for getting off the list by then.
The airlines are going to be pissed.
- chrish
Let it be known that The Department of Homeland Security is an equal-opportunity list-maker. People with arabic-sounding names are considered more equal than anyone else, though.
Terrorist watch lists punish people without trial. They are deeply unAmerican and are a direct violation of your right to due process. It is time to end this madness and call those who support it what they are, traitors.
These proscriptions deprive people of their liberty and property. Those on the lists are unable to use air transport, may be discriminated against when they seek employment and are harassed generally when they conduct business. In short, they are treated as a kind of felon. Needless to say, there's no jury involved before the conviction of "terrorist" is applied.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
First name on the list: Archibald Buttle, then Archibald Tuttle...
Aren't there more Democrats than that in this country?
Two extreme ways:
Be like the Dalai Lama or Ghandi and offer no violence and still hold up our heads high and work on why we're causing those people so much suffering and as a result of our peaceful and loving actions, gain the moral high ground and allies Worldwide and of ALL faiths because of it.
Extermination - like the NAZIs.
One of those extremes is the only way to beat the terrorists.
I prefer the first option myself.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Do we get the significance of that? The list is of names, not individuals. Remember Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy's little problem with the list?. Or how about this vicious 4 year old terrorist?
God help you if your name is John Smith, but it's probably even worse if your name is Mohammed or a variant of it. Oh, wait a second; most Islamic men's legal birth name is Mohammed.
If you want to fly without hinderance, you should probably just go ahead and change your legal name to your social security number, as it's the only way you're likely to get a unique one.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I come from a regional city in Australia (Lismore, 50k people) that floods badly about every 4 years, sending the business district underwater, stranding people and so on and so forth.
Trust me, nobody complains when the government "overreacts" do a disaster.
Take Katrina/New Orleans, if the goverment had spend a fortune on proper dykes they would have been lambasted for wasting money on things only needed in extreme conditions that only happen once every hundred years.
From what I've heard (and I could be wrong, haven't gone looking for citations), the government DID spend money for proper dykes/levees... however it was never spent for what it was intended for. Again, I heard this on mancow I think it was... so take it for what it's worth.
The reality of things is that it's all about control. If you convince a population that it should be afraid it will spend unreasonably large amount of time, effort, and money to make them feel safer. This makes certain companies fat and rich, and keeps the "populace" in control. The same tactic has been used in Religion consistently over the years (no I'm not attacking religion. It's just a good example.).
When people as a whole (not a person) realize that being afraid is exactly what the terrorists wants, and learn to control their fears, and just relax things will get better. I'm still in utter awe that I need a passport to go to Canada on my yearly trips now. A friggin' passport. It take upwards of 6 months to get one now.
If things keep going the way it is, I'll need papers to travel between states. I do not want to live in a police state. Instead I'd rather change our international politics to stop pissing off the people that cause the fear.
Is there some easy and legal way to get on the list or to put other people on it?
Stop the world; I need to get off.
This TWL and the various hues of Terror Alert (today it is brilliant opalescent blue alert level!) are activities done by the Government to show that it is doing something. The logic behind it is not much deeper than, "We need to do something, this is something, so we are doing it."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Really? You think the red scare is what mediated this effect?
Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?</blockquote>
I thought this was Slashdot, not the convention for the retarded. You got an "Insightful" rating for this garbage?
COINCIDENCE != CAUSALITY
Given the data you presented, there is no way to logically come to your conclusion! Furthermore, even if I assume just as a matter of a thought experiment, that you're correct, and the no-fly lists did prevent at least one terrorist attack, it still doesn't make them any better at all, because while the relative risk reduction may have been 100%, the absolute risk reduction would be like 0.0001%... and I am simply not willing to sacrifice much of my freedom, and a colossal amount of my money, for a tiny benefit like that.
Simply put, the cost-to-benefit ratio of these measures is totally unacceptable.
So what happens when the entire population of the country is on the list?
Well, except for members of the Bush administration, naturally they are beyond reproach.
Technoli
First let's sing that old familiar song-- "Causation != Correlation. La la la la na na."
There were 4 planes hijacked before the no-fly list. Now there's none. If you cancel the no-fly list, and a plane gets hijacked, what'll you tell people?
There were 4 planes hijacked before the Obama ran for president. Now there's none. If you don't elect Obama, and a plane gets hijacked, what'll you tell people?
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Right. America's not communist. I don't think you could seriously make that argument, as we spent most of the 20th century defining communism as "any form of liberalism currently not embraced by America"
The Soviet sort of Communism is indeed on the decline. It might have been sound in theory, but it was quickly overrun by corruption (the real enemy) and the political systems evolved to counter that. You could also say that the sort "democracy" that we had in 1920 is also on the decline, and be perfectly correct in that assumption. It all depends upon how you mince your words.
China's playing it by the book. They're going through their capitalist phase (and making a killing off of it in the process). Whether or not they'll eventually close their doors and embrace "real" communism remains to be seen (although history seems to suggest this, as China's been an astonishingly introverted nation for pretty much all of recorded history up until now). If that does come to pass, it will (at least initially) be a 'very bad thing' for the rest of us, regardless of which economic religion you subscribe to.
Socialism, communism's less intimidating cousin, on the other hand, is far from dead, and has more or less been accepted in some form or another across the industrialized world (apart from the US, which has spent far too much effort fighting the reds to allow such a thing to happen). Although communism was never proven to be a successful economic system, socialist-capitalist policies (ie. nationalized healthcare) have proven to be extremely popular and successful in nations that have the economic resources to support them.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You know how there is a crisis in the copyright system because our successful and longstanding system of copyright laws is based on the assumption that copying is too hard for casual infringement?
Well there is another crisis going on that hasn't got nearly the same attention: The laws that protect our fundamental liberties are based on the assumption that suspicion is too hard to sustain for it to be used casually.
Generally speaking, placing somebody under suspicion and investigating that person is not considered a deprivation of liberty. In fact you can't have a functioning criminal legal system without suspicion and investigation, and generally the question of reasonableness isn't applied to the manner under which somebody falls under suspicion, but the manner in which the investigation is undertaken.
Suspicion and surveillance are not considered tantamount to punishment, because they are assumed to be temporary conditions. It's expensive (so the argument goes) to focus suspicion on somebody; if the suspicion is not productive, then the government surely must move its attention elsewhere, for it must have bigger fish to fry.
But what if there is a machine to the suspecting for the government? Furthermore, suppose the main expense is acquiring and maintaining the machine, and the marginal cost of adding more human grist to the mill is zero? Misplaced suspicion is no longer an inconvenience that one must bear occasionally as part of achieving a lower crime rate. It is quite feasible to make suspicion and detailed scrutiny a permament feature of someone's life. Furthermore, this can be done at no additional cost to the government, and it will surely catch at least a few additional miscreants. The entire system can operate without human effort, except to do things like additional pat downs at the airport. Many of those things are simply utilizing slack resources.
In the case of copyright, the government has given tools to private parties like the RIAA that, funded by deep pockets, can enforce and extend their economic interests. Where are the corresponding legal tools for the individual permamently and unjustly accused?
Society is divided into two groups: those who think technology is like magic, and those who understand how technology works. Of those who understand technology, some have a financial interest in technology being used more; some are simply so manifestly paranoid they have no credibility; and many, many more treat thinking about these issues as a boring waste of time. Unfortunately, big changes are coming, and in this case the paranoid people are right: they're the only one who have even considered that the changes that are coming might not be what we want.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
- Annual preventative doctor visits: $200 per life saved
- Drug research: $4000 per life saved
- Aircraft anti-hijacking initiatives: $12,000,000
And this was before 9/11. I imagine that last number is somewhere in the $1,000,000,000 plus range by now, if one were to by into the "Iraq is part of the war on terror" BS, and probably $100,000,000 plus otherwise.> Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?
Actually, if you really want to argue this:
Before 2001, there were 0, repeat, 0 domestic hijackings within the United States for the previous 10 years. That is with none of these no-fly lists, nor the loss of liberties.
So, your arguement is useless as it goes on a false assumption. I would note that out of the 19 hijackers that day, most of them were already on a suspect list, and that's without "no fly" lists, warrantless wiretaps, and the like. It could be said that our overzealotness in making lists has actually increased a potential hijackers ability to "slip through" as now there's so much "noise" in the system.
The previous administration had recieved 36 terror convictions. The current? 1. Yes, read that number, 1. Our "new laws" have managed to actually decrease the number of convictions of terrorists. So, you really want to continue this arguement, or re-evaluate?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
However, your last line stuck with me:
No aliens have landed in my back yard in the past seven years that I've lived there, so the anti-alien beam I disguised as a swing-set must be working?
It's more likely that there've been no hijackings in the last several years because we're dealing with an enemy with a LOT of patience. Remember, they attacked the World Trade Center back in the 1993, and then were content to sit around biding their time. Not only are they (extremists) more than willing to wait decades between attacks, but they've also probably enjoyed watching us beat OURSELVES up for the past six years.
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.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
America ain't communist, and communism seems to be on the decline. So it is kind of hard to disprove that the red-scare tactics didn't work.
France also ain't communist. And this proves?
There is oversight and regulations of even a completely private thing like an individual's credit history. Banks can not simply claim: "we don't like this guy" — there are laws regulating, what records can be kept, and procedures allowing people to dispute inaccuracies.
The "terror list", which, allegedly, is used to not simply cause extra scrutiny, but to also deny boarding sometimes, is maintained by the (Executive) government and is in sore need of similar regulations. As a minimum, one must be able to inquire, whether he or she are on the list and to challenge the placing both in administrative proceedings or in courts.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Amen brother. I don't even need to post because you took the words out of my mouth.
or something to that effect...
Next time when I see yet another story on how China limits the freedoms of its citizens I shall be sure to point out this story.
fuck karma, I like saying the truth better
The biggest reason there have been no hijackings is that WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11.
Do you really think any hijacker would stand a chance on a plane anymore?
I know that I would rip the tray table off of the seat in front of me and use it as a weapon against any terrorist activity on a plane. Sure I would probably die, but doing nothing, I would probably die as anyway.
The bad guys know this. They know they cannot get control of the plane as long as one person is still alive. That is why there have been no hijackings, we would rather die fighting than cowering.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Look who set up this whole DHS operation from the start- A bunch of clearly corrupt politicians who are obviously up to no good. We already know they're more into protecting their self interests than protecting people.
The language barrier is just the tipping point to where it's going to be too difficult to make life work in another country for me. I doubt I could even find a job without being able to speak the language. I'm not that qualified that anyone would be willing to make any special arrangements for me. There's plenty of Germans and Austrians that can not only speak German, but English also and probably another language too. I can actually understand German fairly well written, spoken less so, and I'm sure I speak better than the average tourist but it would be too difficult to find employment. I don't have many deep personal, family, or economic ties to the US, but I feel like with my means there's really just no where I could relocate to and still enjoy the same standard of living. My Grandparents came from Germany after the wall went up, so there is precedent in my family for escaping Political persecution. But things aren't that bad here, yet. Although we are working on that Mexican border...
And Flamebait? Come on guys. Mods have no sense of humor tonight or something? The Bioshock joke should have been a clue not to take it so seriously. Hell even an American figured that out.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
And, contrary to popular beliefs, we are making MORE of them!
This is what passes as insightful nowadays? Feh!
I don't know if any reputable historians would agree with your implied premise that there was an actual, credible "communist" threat to the United States at any point in the past. If the threat never existed in the first place, it is kind of hard to disprove that drinking milk every day wasn't have an equivalent (or superior) deterrence against communism.
Assuming of course that there is an actual, credible terrorist threat...
I think a sense of proportionality is required here: there are thousands of aircraft flights in the United States every day. Over the past 10 years, exactly four flights were hijacked. On any given day in recent history, more people are killed by impaired drivers in the United States than are killed by terrorists.
And yet, some people applaud insulting and ineffectual security measures because it give the appearance that the government is doing something to protect them.
Sorry to break it to you dude, but terrorists are criminals, and the way to catch criminals is with boring, methodical police work. It's not glamorous, but it is effective. I (for one) find it hard to believe that making everyone remove their shoes at the airport has saved so much as a single life. At best, it might have given a woody to someone with a foot fetish, but that's about all that has been accomplished...
I really feel sorry that there are people out there who are so afraid that bogus security theater makes them feel safer. I hope that some day, they will realize that effective national security policies are not based on lame Hollywood movie plots.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
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.
... the winning proposal didn't specify the ability to remove names. It's only ever going to get bigger.
"They're making a list, and checking it twice ... "
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice
TSA is coming to town
Oops, my mistake -- they're not actually checking the list twice.
-kj
-kgj
America ain't communist, and communism seems to be on the decline.
And what exactly does that have to do with McCarthyism? Are you implying that it's the REASON why America isn't "communist" and that the Soviet Union collapsed? Give me a break.
Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?
How many aircraft were hijacked in the 6 years leading up to 2001? Wow! None, and there was no "no fly" list.
Locking and reinforcing the cabin door is much more effective than a stupid "list".
but to those who support it, it seems to work. It got them re-elected, and there ain't been no hijackings since.
There were no hijackings before, either. See if you say there is such a thing as "median" intelligence, then half the population are dumber than the other half. Unfortunately at election time the smart people feel so much apathy towards this FARCE called "democracy" that few of them went to vote. Boasting that a party got "re-elected" (barely) does not necessarily mean that a) the "party" is doing a great job or b) they are the "smart" choice.
PS : the last hijack in the US was in 1987.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Remember when Bush said that? Unfortunately, we all thought he meant the United States. What he actually was saying was "You're either with us [The neocons] or you're against us."
Otherwise all those people would be shot dead as soon as they tried to book a flight.
like "Edward Kennedy?"
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
It keeps tigers away.
Would you like to buy it?
I'll throw in a coupon that can get you a discount for your Bear Patrol Tax.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
But wait, I thought the pubbies kept saying that they're only watching people who need to be watched, and are sticking to the law!? You mean the government is lying? I can't believe that! No way! I wish I knew why the heck people can't dig their heads out of the sand and realize what the hell is going on... do people just not realize how perilously close we are to living in the orwellian future forecast by 1984? Cameras are everywhere in the UK and soon in the US, unmanned spyplanes doing thousands of runs per day over our countries, arrests being made based on information garnered from satellites, every conversation is being monitored, people are being held without habeas corpus because the governments are creating black-bagging legal grey areas, fighting a war that can't possibly be won and using it as an attempt to unify and pacify your body-politic... its terrifying. Yet it seems like only a few people realize it. I just want my free frontal lobotomy so I don't have to care about it anymore.
"Our communication with the Canadian government about this was by no means perfect. In fact, it was quite imperfect," Condoleezza Rice told the congressional foreign-relations committee on Wednesday.
She didn't apologize for shipping Maher Arar to his native country of Syria in the fall of 2002, where he was imprisoned for almost a year and tortured as a terror suspect, instead of returning him to Canada.
Rice said she was aware of "allegations of torture."
You can't take the sky from me...
So I guess in a couple of decades it will stop being a threat. When we run out of oil and they run out of funding and stop being interesting as an enemy.
I wonder who will be the new terrorists?
I propose vampires.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Probably the main reason for this is simply that whatever bureaucrats (DHS? TSA?) are behind this, they're worried that another attack (however small) will happen, and the attackers' names will not be on the list. In that case, someone will lose their job, so if you are one of the bureaucrats, the rational thing to do is to put as many names on the list as possible, even if there's only trivial evidence or suspicion about them; that way, when the blame game starts, at least it won't be you who ends up as the scapegoat.
Until said policies drain the public treasury, and exhaust (or drive away) those being taxed to support it. It's the bread-and-circuses thing all over again.
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?
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Every time I hear about that terrorist list, I can't help but think it is complete and total bunk.
/is/ just a list of "potential" terrorists, one would think that, at some point, /somebody/ in the government would realize that list is almost useless...
Honestly, if there were that many terrorists in the States, there wouldn't be enough non-terrorists left to care. Even if it
Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
Why? What does this have to do with China?
The analogy fits, this way: there is a bell for the fire department, one for the FBI, one for the CIA, one for DHS...they don't share their information. Then there's a special black bell for Dick Cheney alone. God knows what weird messages he hears!
Let's say you want to add the leader of Libya. According to this wikipedia article, there are no less than 36 ways to spell his name, including, but not limited to:
Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi
Mu'ammar al-Qaf
Muammar al-Gaddafi
Muammar al-Qaddafi
Moammar Gadhafi
Muammar al-Qadhafi
Mu'ammar Qaddafi
Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi
Moammar El-Gadhafi
Muammar al-Gathafi
And that doesn't even take into consideration any other permutations/variants of his "middle names". In other words, it isn't like there are actually 700,000 people on the list. I would guess that the number is actually much, much smaller than 100,000, but they have names that are not spelled with latin characters, and which can be transcribed in myriad ways.
Postings critical of the administration are routinely used for inclusion in the No-Fly list. - Ministry of Truth.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".
I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:
I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.
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.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
I have had several friends get flagged because they have similar names to someone on the no-fly list. A common problem with Arab names and non Arab people looking at them. With 500+ plus added a day there is no way all these names can be double checked to ensure innocent people are not added. This doesn't make us any safer just inconveniences more people.
WTF?
You mean Bushie's fictional war on terror that is a figment of his sociopathic metal state? Or how his cronies keep perpetuating his mental illness?
The fallacy of the War on Terror - http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1212-13.htm
Fake names of famous americans. I'm sure the T. Kennedy used by one known terrorist wasn't an accident. Imagine the lockdown that occurs if terrorists just start flying while using the names of many famous americans. It's either complete grid-lock and a reevaluation of the system, or it's complete gridlock forever. Either way, terrorists win.
Nice job, Shrubby.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Will people please stop checking out Catcher in the Rye at the public library.
The Saudis saved your arse and defeated the communists.
Deleted
We are Gathering
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
There's 745 people in the USA with my name ( according to this site ) ... does that mean I have 745 more chances then someone who's only got one person in the country with their name? ... or is it a little more "specific" ? Would suck to have any sort of arabian name even if it is more specific... :F for different reasons obviously.
Position is that I fail to see a significant moral difference between crashing a plane of passengers and handing out sanctions that only serve to starve the poor, young, old, and sick except that one takes a few thousand lives and the other may be counted in the millions.
Perhaps instead of focusing on the belief that "they are evil, plain and simple and must be extinguished" and forming our (very expensive) policies around this extremely simplistic view we should be asking ourselves "why do so many people want us dead so badly?". This is not to suggest that the blame lies on the victims of terrorism, but perhaps a change in our destructive, aggressive, and state sanctioned terrorism of 3rd world nations might wittle down the shear numbers of people who view us as evil.
For example, infant mortality has increased six-fold since 1990 in Iraq and 32% of children under 5 are malnourished. facts & myths (with citations). Impacts on Iraq population since 1990 have been devastating.
There's no doubt Saddam was a classic "mad dictator", but only in his wildest dreams could he have effected the level of destruction seen over the past 17 years. Further, despite our beliefs that Iraq was a backwards nation full of dolts the population used be quite educated by global standards with literacy rates reaching the upper 80 percent. A good portion of the pop is quite aware of the US's (Rumsfield and the first Bush administration's) contribution to Saddams domination by supplying the tools needed to carry out his attacks against certain sections of the population and Iran.
I am not defending the actions of terrorists in any way, but we're making it pretty damned easy for various groups to attract new recruits.
I'm sure it works like this....
If you ask if you're on the list, you're on the list. (Or will be soon.)
One could convict on charges of conspiracy, weapons possession, etc. before 9/11, so there's no particular reason to think that (unless you have knowledge of the particulars of the cases). It seems you're simply choosing to believe that which would be convenient. A much better objection is that the figure of merit is not terrorist convictions. Presumably it is lives saved. The way terror suspects were treated changed post-9/11 to emphasize prevention rather than conviction.
Did the change work? Unfortunately, that's an extraordinarily difficult thing to estimate if you think about it thoroughly and rationally, something which most people debating the issue seem incapable of. The underlying rate of people trying to commit attacks changes over time (both systematically and by statistical fluctuations), and it's difficult to say what might have happened if things were done differently. Clearly, far more US citizens have died in terrorist attacks under Bush's presidency than at any other time during American history, but there's a good argument that the same would likely have happened to any president who happened to be in office now. If so, it would be a mistake to say Bush's policies were at fault. That alone illustrates some of the subtlety.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
you know, of the Nineveah Kennedys.
on another note,
One of the many things I find darkly funny is that all the right wingers are fine and dandy with singling out folks who look "arab" don't for a minute have cognizance of the fact that at least a third of Iran's population are blond-haired, blue-eyed caucasians. You know, state sponsor of terrorism, Iran. Yeah, that Iran. See, the Caucases mountains are nearby which is where the term comes from.
So Ann Coulter is fine with swarthy folk with dark curly hair getting the third degree constantly. I wonder if that would change if our prejudices were more completely targeted at blond-haired, blue-eyed folk like her. Because if this isn't about security theater, we ought to.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
It wasn't watch lists that prevented hijackings since 9/11. It was locked cabin doors.
The cake is a pie
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
Press Play
As an interesting side note, our culture does teach that food is evil- look at all the anorexics and bulimics we have in our society today. I suppose too much of any need (food, sex, even water) is harmful, but different cultures define what 'too much' is differently.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Can you provide examples of countries in which that's actually happened?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
the practice of naming something to jerk on heartstrings while robbing the country blind?
say operation iraqi freedom which translates to operation grab the oil?
or perhaps i've missed our recent 100,000+ troop deployments to the Sudan. Oh wait, no oil.
how about "compassionate conservatism" which translates to we're really Democrats?
FEMA has a long history of demonstrating the principles of conservatism and compassion.
drip drip
oops, too much sarcasm. i'll have to work on the dose.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
are these terrorists from other countries or Americans?
I wonder why so many "terrorists" want to terrorize.
does this list include animal activists?
does this list include abortion clinic bombers?
They're using their grammar skills there.
atheism is a religion and has its zealots too. give it time, i'm sure they'll join the rest of the religions in the asshattery soon enough.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sure. I don't disagree at all. The road block though, is the folks who can't stand that we're (The USA) is being attacked. And, I personally know a few folks like this, we have to deal with the folks who firmly believe that the terrorists are this group of folks who are guided by an ideology that's beyond reason. The person I'm thinking of equates the Islamic Terrorists with the Japanese who refused to surrender. I found it quite enlightening that, even after dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, the "war council" (of WWII Japan) was STILL divided about surrendering to the US. They would have rather died than surrender - even if that included every last man and child on the Japanese Island. There are folks in the US who think that ALL Muslims have this ideology.
A book that I found to have a fresh interpretation of all of this is ThePower of a Positive NO
The Arab people are REALLY pissed off and some of them are soooo pissed off, they want die and take everyone else out with them. Add in religion (Islam) and you get a VERY powerful force. What I mean by "add in Islam", I'm sure you've seen the interview with some tribesman somewhere who's went fight in Iraq (or wherever) to help his "Muslim Brother".
That's how to beat the terrorists: refuse to be terrorized.,p/>Amen to that! But tell that to the folks who are saying "I need to protect my children!" Even thought the odds are that their children will die in an auto accident while their parents are driving. Or that their children will die because of all the fast food their parents feed them. You know what I'm talking about: folks do not understand risk and where it's coming from.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
The Chinese are still killing the Falun Gong and oppressing the Tibetian monks even if they've stopped killing Christians (it's bad PR to kill Christians, but other groups don't get as much press). I believe the Russians massacred lots of those pesky religious types as well back when they were Communist. History is full of people massacring those who believe in different things than they do, and atheism clearly isn't a cure for that.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
and we all know they're not mercenaries. they're a security firm. with weapons illegal to possess in the US.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
But now we no longer have to go to all the trouble to sequester and threaten people. Today their rights can be removed almost instantaneously!
"We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
The rumor is that Halliburton has the contract to build 2500 concentration camps with 500 to 1000 beds each. ...) and expendable/consumable (clothing, food ...) goods.
...?
Blackwater has the contract in the bag for staffing administration, maintenance, camp hospitals, and guards.
Walmart has the contract for providing durable (appliances, furniture
Soon we will be able to bring all the rendition terrorist home, and eliminate the Terrorist Watch List (TWL) [AKA: No Fly List].
I hear even brokers are rating Halliburton, Walmart, and Blackwater as extremely strong aggressive buys, because of all the potential USA business available. The drug war will be on the back burner for a couple decades with most money going to keeping
Countries with concentration camps are _____.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
we're giving that part of the franchise away. call it a loss leader.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
McCarthyism was very similar to the Stalinist purges. The latter purged the government of any potential impediments to Stalin's total rule and, just as importantly, reminded everyone to not fuck with him. Here's another very interesting similarity: Stalin's purges were always carried out by some high person in government, but never Stalin himself (at least not publicly). At the end of the purge, this person was always denounced as having taken things too far, turned into a pariah and kicked out of office (if he was lucky).
Property is theft.
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/
There's not "no right to transport." There's a dent in the constitutional protection of the right to travel predicated on the availability of alternative means of travel.
the gist of the opinion of the court is that because there are alternate means of travel, you can choose one of those rather than submit to searches and id checks.
Gilmore mentioned in his complaint having heard that similar measures were put in place for train travel, but these were rejected as hearsay. i guess he ought to have tried to travel by train and sued the TSA and both Amtrak and the airline. He didn't. Anyways, even if he had, it seems fairly clear that the court would have ignored reason yet again.
basically it's a cop-out and yet another instance of the courts turning a blind eye to the government's depredations.
feh!
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
It's a joke, laugh.
~Vexed and loving it!
If a potential terrorist, or hell anyone else who would be normally barred from entering the USofA wanted to enter the country, I believe it would be easy. Just fly to Mexico and jump the fence, or just walk across where there is no fence. Or fly to Canada and paddle a sea kayak from Victoria to Port Angeles. Or, again walk across anywhere along the US-Canada border. This no fly list is useless unless our neighboring countries have a similar entry denial process.
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
but there was and is also a lot of opportunism. 1400+ pages of patriot act materialized in like two weeks? i don't think so. somebody had something on a shelf they dusted off and pushed on the congress all the while questioning the patriotism of any members who actually wanted to *gasp* read the legislation they were voting on.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
and apologized. he's now a legit member of the international community or some such rubbish.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
"Why are there 50 pink flamingos in your front yard?"
"To keep the bears away. You don't see any bears, do you??"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
...and I don't understand why. I have lots of shady connections in the Middle East. I'm known for my nasty opinions. I even have the same last name as a famous Russian terrorist. (He lived a century ago and is no relation, but still.) I guess it's who you know.
My sister's company does business worldwide, including China, and this is what she has to say about China's new capitalism:
It isn't capitalism at all. It's designed *entirely* to suck money out of the rest of the world, even if doing so is at the expense of the average Chinese. And it will end the moment it ceases to benefit China.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
New Facebook group "Federal Terror Watchlist OMG lets get over 1,000,000 peeps"
Guess that's why my friend in Germany is planning to move elsewhere -- he says the regulations and restrictions are getting so bizarre that normal people can't live there anymore.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
...they still let me fly, though.
I imagine there's a lot of duplication, similar names, etc.
"Ya think?"
"Prolly."
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
-FL
It's important to understand why this is a big deal.
Before 2001, only about 25,000 people were on the watch list. And most of those people were convicted of crimes at least vaguely related to terrorism. Many were dead.
The vast majority of the 755,000 people now on the watch list have NOT been convicted of a crime. MOST of them are on the list effectively because of anonymous tips (or tips from "secret" sources). There is no process at all to get on the list, a Homeland Security official simply submits the name with no supporting paperwork. I strongly suspect that NOBODY knows why the vast majority of those on the list were placed on the list. There is no mechanism for getting OFF the list, the assumption when it was created is that it would be limited to convicted terrorists could would stay on the list permanently. Before 2001, many of the people on the list were dead because there was/is no mechanism to remove them.
Shouldn't we respond with an imaginary strategy?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Today I have mod points, but I'd rather reply to this post. At the rate that names are being added to the list, and the rate at which the USD is losing value, people don't have much longer to vote with their feet. Simply leaving the country (permanently) is hard enough financially, it's not about to get any easier in the near future. If the american economy collapses you wont see a mass exadous of people leaving the country, like you do in smaller countries. Even if the borders to Canada and Mexico remain open, its simply too far to walk, or drive for most of the population. Most of the population will be effectively trapped, even if not physically.
Ride recklessly only when safe to do so.
I know a few people who think along the same lines. One German guy I work with claims Austria is far, far nicer than Germany and I know a family from Switzerland who agree. I have another co-worker who is moving to Panama because he feels repressed by all the regulations and restrictions in the EU.
Just because someone was born in a particular place doesn't mean that's the best place on Earth for them to live.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
.....is to keep adding names until EVERYONE is on the list. Then we can all be declared enemy combatants, lose what few rights we have left, and the country will be renamed "The United States of Guantanamo."
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
"Ayman al-Zawahiri is in your extended network!"
Is this list published for us common citizens to look at? Id like to see i have been improperly placed on it BEFORE i get pulled aside for 'questioning'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I hope you didn't mean to imply that non-USA citizens cannot be convicted in US courts, because they can. Anyway, presumably government added the people on the http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holyland23oct23,1,1922726.story?coll=la-headlines-nationHoly Land Foundation donor list to the Watch List. Seized the foundation assets and investigated the case for six years but something went wrong with the trial. No guilty verdict. Are the people who donated still worth watching? (And for six years they have been watched in newly allowed ways.) Is there any way to get off the Watch List?
We must repeat.
... before the Bear Tax. If you let the Bears win... Unfortunately, Michigan has stopped letting Toronto dump its trash there, so the Bear Tax might have to be repealed.- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I highly recommend "An Easy Path for Terrorists," written by security expert Bruce Schneier. He's talking about the "Trusted Traveler" and "Registered Traveler" programs designed to speed up the airport security lines, but it's the same problem, the same proposed solution, and has the same flaws in the solution. In short: if you create a low security route ("I've got a card that says I'm safe, so don't search me"), some terrorists will manage to get into the low security route. You've created a more complex system with more possibilities for attack.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Yes, it is an absurd notion. Completely and utterly absurd. Tragically, it appears to be true as well.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
To to rain on your calculations, but did you also figure in...
* casualties on the ground (directed to inflict, vs directed to avoid) (That is, the cost is not to you alone, or even limited to those in the plane.)
* encouragement by success (The "not only do you prevent the 1 attack, but you prevent N other successful/unsuccessful incidents by copycats.)
* further security crackdowns as a result of previous perceived security failure, brought on by mass outcry from the public to "do something"?
Politicians being what they are, failing to "do something", even if it is the wrong thing, gets pointed out by people who then become incumbents, if you take my meaning. Politicians who actually do the wrong thing can point and say "at least I tried" if it gets shown to be bogus. Doesn't make it any less wrong, but they're a bit more likely to retain their job.
And make no mistake, I think the no-fly lists are as ineffective as you can get. Flash a newly-minted fake ID at the boarding gate, and there you go.
Sucks for us, though, don't it?
Incorrect. Those 36 include plots that were not carried out, prevented by the pre-9/11 use of the FISA court and good old fashioned police work.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
The state knows that "everybody is guilty of something" - so they just put everybody on a "Watch List".
It doesn't matter that the "Watch List" is useless as an actual "Watch List". It's useful because at any time, for any reason, that some state official wants to mess with you, they can say, "You're on the Watch List."
It's a control mechanism. It has absolutely nothing to do with "terrorism", just like the TSA and the rest of the pointless measures they take will never, ever have any impact whatsoever on real, live terrorists whose job it is and whose training it is to get around such measures in the first place.
Nothing the US has done since 9/11 would necessarily prevent another 9/11 - even assuming terrorists are interested in doing another 9/11. There are probably a lot of reasons an identical 9/11 hasn't occurred - reasons having nothing to do with the security measures put in place since the first one, but more to do with issues of organization, target selection, finances, redirected emphasis on other priorities, or simple disinterest. Even simple competence at pulling one off in the first place - maybe they got lucky with the first one - or more sinisterly, maybe they had help they weren't aware of to allow them to pull off the first one.
By definition, as Rutger Hauer's character said in the movie "Nighthawks", "Remember, there is no security."
Dick Marcinko used to say the same thing with regard to his Red Cell SEAL Team exercises. He pointed out that security organizations operate by checklists. They run down a checklist making sure everything is secure. He said that terrorists don't operate by checklists. They hit targets of opportunity. So his Team would just wait until the security organization went through the motions - then bypassed whatever security they thought they had and made their hit anyway using methods that either hadn't been considered in the first place or which stressed and actually made use of the security measures in place to bypass the security.
Example: an alarm system. Throw rocks at it until the numerous false alarms make the security people turn it off for repair. The very security system you're using is used to bypass it.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't have security systems. It just means you have to remember that they're only there to "keep out the riffraff." As long as your only enemies are "riffraff", they might work.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Which was what this subthread was about, and if you would allow an abortion for the safety of the mother, then you obviously do not believe that a fetus is a human at conception and a person under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. If you do, then your are advocating first degree murder.
As to your assertion regarding Anencephaly; maybe you should take a peek at some images. These fetuses are born without a forebrain and a cerebrum. Arguably, not even human because of this, but once again, the argument was stated about why it would be insane to legally dictate that fetuses were human at conception.
But here's the rub then: if a fetus is not a human, then it does boil down to a question of personal morality. Politicians and Governments are the very last entities on the earth who should have the power to dictate personal morality. I am not "Pro-Abortion"; the use of it as a birth control procedure is indeed troubling, but I am realistic about the limitations that a legitimate state possesses over the acts of its citizens too. The decision rightfully belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her attending physician.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Paul has proposed two federal Bills this year that would restrict abortion at the Federal Level, and take it away from the decision of individual states:
Has anybody who supports Paul actually taken the time to read his proposed Bills in the House?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
As an Australian who has also lived in the US for a while, I second that Australia runs a close second to the USA with ineffective, knee-jerk laws. At least wait until there's a change of government before thining about moving here. John Howard can't take Bush's dick out of mouth for long enough to do any real governing. I don't blame Bush for that, I blame the Australian people for believing his bullshit for so many years:
-No GST
-No interest rate rises
-Babies oveboard
-etc.
Rant over, I feel slightly better now.
sustainable living
I like to watch terrorism, so please add me to your list. Sincerely, Joe Blow
"Causation != Correlation. La la la la na na."
Except causation is absolutely a correlation. Just not all correlations are causal.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Socialism...has more or less been accepted in some form or another across the industrialized world (apart from the US, which has spent far too much effort fighting the reds to allow such a thing to happen).
What are you talking about? We have Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Section 8, Unemployment, Public Education, Pell Grants, Social Security, and socialized healthcare is on the horizon. The US has largely embraced Socialism in all but name.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Well, it's a bit of a Heads-You-Win, Tails-I-Lose scenario. The longer we go without an attack, the more justified the programs appear. The only way to prove that the system is ineffective is to sustain another attack. That's almost the definition of the Catch-22: you can only be mentally evaluated upon request, but requesting to be evaluated is evidence of sanity. I believe there is merit to the idea that would-be terrorists are largely preoccupied with working in the mid-east, but unfortunately it is neither tenable nor productive to remain there indefinitely, and the cost is hardly worth the gains. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to save lives, but, as mentioned earlier, we could save MORE lives more by expending our resources more judiciously, such as with healthcare, traffic safety, and the other things that are killing us on a daily basis.
The best arguments against these programs, in my view, is not whether or not they are effective, but that they are allowing our enemies to dictate our policies and our behavior. Furthermore, as has also been stated, our policies -- foreign and domestic -- appear to be promoting further anti-American/anti-government opinion, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to accomplish, or at the very least what a democratic government should seek to avoid. We don't need to make everyone happy, but we don't need to piss everyone off either.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Who sez it has ANYTHING to do with China at all? But the media and /. are is filled with articles about how China is so restrictive. I see USA is as restrictive as China. Not much "freedom and democracy" as it is claimed.
fuck karma, I like saying the truth better
... and a government that's doing everything its power to kill off all of those things.
Have you not been following the news lately? The child healthcare bill got struck down. Even the "think of the children" argument isn't good enough to support socialized healthcare in America (although it has thus far worked on every other piece of legislation where it's been brought up).
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The list is 755,000 NAMES. Not people.
You see, people with evil or even just illegal intent generally try to HIDE themselves and their plans. Sometimes when you ask them their name they will... LIE. They will provide an alias. They don't want to be held accountable for their actions. Isn't that crazy? i know, it's shocking. Some criminals wear masks to obscure their faces to avoid imprisonment, and not just on Halloween! So the list is of NAMES. Sometimes one person might use half a dozen aliases. The number of PEOPLE on the list might be far fewer than that. It gets more complex; sometimes they use a name once and never again. Maybe because using the same alias repeatedly might be easier to trace back to an actual person.
Should we then cap the list to say, 500,000? The 500,001th person who decides to plot a hijacking gets a free pass?
Sorry about the sarcasm. Sometimes my loathing of partisan paranoia gets the better of me.
OK, so the list is long. But instead of doing ANOTHER knee jerk reaction, let's investigate. Why is the list that long? Can we sort the list by likelihood, have one team work to clear the names of the people at the bottom and another apprehending those at the top? Can we review the system that puts a name on the list? Maybe the system is generating too many false positives. If so, change the threshold. Could it be possible that there really ARE that many names we need to investigate? If there are, whining about the length of the list is silly. Wouldn't you want the list of serial killer investigations to be as long as need be? "Sorry, we can't persue the guy who raped your sister, lest we criminalize too many people."
There is no such thing as security, or total security. Security and Convenience/Freedom are mutually opposing forces at the extreme ends. Without some degree of security, you're totally vulnerable. You'll be attacked or living in constant fear of attack. With too much security, you're paralyzed. So perhaps the security should be determined by the actual threat and the value of what you are protecting. Does that sound reasonable?
So, there IS a threat. To pretend otherwise is insane. However, the threat is not nearly as big as those in charge think it is. On the other hand, the value of the target is far higher than is readily obvious. 3000 lives by themselves are a tragic loss, but the cost of 11 Sep does not end with body count! The cost of that attack was a world power thrown into fear, about one trillion $ in damages* and a carte blanche given to a president with an 80 IQ. My life is very valuable to me, as are the lives of the people i care about. i also value the lives of my fellow citizens and even funny talking furriners. i don't want them killed here or elsewhere. As such, i say that the value of the lives that might be taken as pretty damn high. Short of check points with bomb sniffing dogs at every intersection, there's only so much that we can do though without making life unlivable. Which is precisely what our enemy wants.
There must be balance. There must be oversight. And there must be a change to how we do things and how we think. If we pretend the lion means us no harm or that it didn't just kill Bob, we deserve to become lion poop. If we don't figure out what causes the plague and how to stop it, we deserve to die. If we burn down the village to find the guy who pissed in the well, we deserve what that brings as well.
The problem is compounded by partisan idiocy. We're too busy comparing Bush to Hitler to deal with the situation rationally. We're too busy saying "Thats 10 Sep thinking!". We care too much about WHO is saying what, than with what they are saying. We dismiss each other as libtards and neotards. It does not matter who started it, only who participates in it. Anyone joining the fray is guilty. Politicians and citizens should put reality above partisan childishness. Elected officials should represent EVERYONE, not just the people who voted for them.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I see USA is as restrictive as China.
Then you lack perspective. As I see it, a comparison of restrictions will settle this. There will be a few restrictions that only the US has, a number of restrictions common to both, and a lot of restrictions that only China has. Then it's a matter of figuring out that the restrictions that only China has are far more restraining and burdensome than the restrictions that only the US has.thank you.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
So... I should turn in Ronald McDonald to Homeland Security??
Oh, no. He's merely a tragic exile and a shell of his former self. He deserves our pity, not our hatred.
His illegitimate daughter, on the other hand, is a clear agent for the powers in McDonaldland. As for Jim Skinner, I think his name suggests his deserved fate....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
You're twisting in the wind, again.
The big bad protector of the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul, proposes to limit through a Constitutional Amendment the reach of citizenry with a redefinition that denies that humans born with U.S. sovereign territory possess a native U.S. citizenship. This makes a mockery of The Founders' Original Intents, and is assuredly NOT a return to Strict Adherence to Constituional Law.
The U.S. Constitution Amendment 14; Section 1. states:
Paul again is attempting to selectively nullify the Fourteenth Amendment, even as he uses it to greatly expand the reach of the government into the private acts of the citizenry by greatly expanding the definition of the term "person" to include fetuses at conception. Furthermore, this proposal's lawfulness should be challenged as being odious to the foundations of Western Civilization's jurisprudence, and antithetical to the Constitution because it is in reality a bill of attainder that works a corruption of blood upon some humans born within the United States' Sovereign Territory:
You claim that this would in some way expand liberty? Stealing the Natural rights of humans for your personal gain is not an expansion of liberty. Then you laughably tell me to focus on "The Bigger Picture"?
Move along citizens, nothing to see here; it's just another poseur politician engaging in bestiality with the Constitution.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
By the way, Rudy was there on 9/11 and saw first hand what will surely happen again if you don't vote for him.
And the people of NYC were there, too, and saw what will surely happen again if you do vote for him. His popularity in NYC is second only to the typical homeless man's urine; compared to any eligible candidate, he's about 228,569,784th.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
When our laws are derived from and/or mandated by religion and demagoguery, they are laws of treason attempting to subvert the public welfare and "The USA Constitution".
... of "all Federal Taxes", and simply put in place one sales tax (businesses/brokerages/... collect and pay) rate that would vary annually to get, and then keep a balanced budget based on current events, "The USA Constitution" and public defense with mandatory (4 years, no nepotism) national service, and public welfare (support as needed education, research, medicine, food, housing, clothing ...) our future would be better for USAll. [($5K) 10% of $50K for an expensive car is as fair as ($0.5K) 10% of $5K for a good used work/school car.]
..., then I will consider abortion as wrong. Presently ... the faux-religious are wrong and evil (including the bishop of Rome and patriarch of Islam in Mecca) for seeking political oppression of others that will not protect and care for any baby or child in any land.
Ron Paul is just another politician looking for his modern street-corner soapbox. The soapbox analogy as in the past still provides recognizable above others marketeer image, not substance. Today politicians like myth-prophets, they build their soapboxes out of vapor-truth, spin-events, puff-logic, pseudo-patriotism, faux-values, and fake-dogma for an office that legalizes feudal oppression and public exploitation of US Citizens.
If we ended the laws for collection, deductions, deferrals
It ain't about abortion, it is about right and wrong. When all the rich religious folks sign-up to adopt and care for as their own all babies/children in the USA needing a home, food, education, medical care
The greatest evil in the world is a religious/political leader, most (I suspect) 9 of 10 would be found wanton with no hope of redemption, therefore no need for penitence.
I wish, very much, that the prophets would return from death, and judge all religious/political leader.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?"
You know the parent has a point (if even causually) we could stop 100% of airplane hijacks if we didn't allow anyone to fly.. and the way the watch list seems to be ballooning that seems to be the apparently soon to be reality.