Slashdot Mirror
1,600 Names Suggested Daily For FBI's Watch List
schwit1 writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"During a 12-month period ended in March this year... the US intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a 'reasonable suspicion,' according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week. ... The ever-churning list is said to contain more than 400,000 unique names and over 1 million entries. The committee was told that over that same period, officials asked each day that 600 names be removed and 4,800 records be modified. Fewer than 5 percent of the people on the list are US citizens or legal permanent residents. Nine percent of those on the terrorism list, the FBI said, are also on the government's 'no fly' list."
And those who consider it shouldn't have the power to decide it except in a court of law.
Just because some paranoid mcarthyist hacks in the government think some guy seems a bit whack doesnt mean they should have a right to go around fucking people over with no fly lists unless its proven in a court.
The system is entirely at odds with the concept of liberty and needs to be *urgently* scrapped and subject to a public enquiry to identify the decision makers behind it so that they might be prevented from having anything to do with policy ever again.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
a socialist (caucasian) Belgian politician got on that list because the immigration officer thought he had too much South American stamps on his passport. So after taking him into a small office, they googled his name and found his articles to be too "left wing" to their taste and he was refused access and said that if he wanted to come to the US he had to apply for a visa. He did just that and of course it was refused. Lately, he took the plane to Brazil (a direct flight), and they had to detour the whole plane for hundreds of miles, because he was on it and they weren't allowed to fly over US territory (the crew told him afterwards) . And of course, there is no way to get off that list.
It only requires a few unscrupulous groups to voluntarily suggest names of innocent people to inflate the list, increasing the likelihood of false-positives on any given search and reducing the likelihood of being matched themselves within a meaningful time frame.
Then that's exactly how you defeat the system. If everyone suggested someone for the list, then in no time the list would include everyone, thereby making it useless.
Okay let's test the slashdot effect.
monday: everyone reccomend sarah palin for the watch list
tuesday: everyone reccomend Nancy Pelosi
wednesday: Hannity
thursaday: Harry reid
friday: Lieberman.
either we'll slashdot the service or do the nation a favor.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
My son, 12 now, with a middle eastern name but born in the US. We travel a lot and they always flag his name for a second check. Ever since he was a toddler. You would think that after the first or second time, they will somehow amend the records with my name, his mom's name and DOB. But no, we go through the process every time we fly. It is a minor irritant at his age now, but I am very worried about him when he is an adult. We are seriously thinking about changing his name but I am not sure that it will make a difference.
How do they define "reasonable suspicion"? I couldn't find that information in the article.
Judging by the numbers, I have a guess. If they arrest a terror suspect and search his house and find your contact information, you're on the list. Terrorists incidentally keep a LOT of contacts in things they call "Phone books," suprisingly well organized. Alphabetical and everything. Very neat handwriting as well. Business contacts are usually kept in books with yellowish pages, the significance of which is unknown. What's scary is that they have a number of contacts IN THE GOVERNMENT, on blue pages indicating they may be democrats.
1600 suspected terrorists a day? If even 1% of that was real then we'd be dealing with 58,000 people a year intending to commit terrorist acts a year? Are we suppose to believe that the FBI has managed to stop them all in every case??? It's not that hard to blow a bus up or derail a train, so why aren't they doing it? Oh I know, because it's all bullshit.
The only terrorists I see are in the government and the media. They're the only ones using terror to get us to change our way of life. Ooh, Iran is gonna nuke the world, global warming/cooling is going to put our cities underwater/put us in a deep freeze, swine/bird flu/monkey pox/SARS is going to be the next plague that kills us all, main street will starve to death if we don't give your money to these bankers over here, Islamofascism seeks to establish a dictatorship over the world. Eurasia is our friend, Eastasia is our enemy. Eastasia is our friend, Eurasia is our enemy. It's gone well beyond the little boy who cried wolf at this point and has become more akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. And in each case, the cry is the same: "We can protect you from all these horrors if only you give us more power. We all have to sacrifice to do what is necessary."
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
Actually, this has been to the supreme court, and so isn't going to change.
You see, when the public backed the idea that people convicted of certain crimes (sexual, violent) should be publicly listed (on web sites, etc.), the courts decided to find a way to pretend that wasn't an ex post facto violation for the previously convicted (and those not convicted, because they put them on there as well, for instance those with adjudication withheld judgments.)
In order to pull that bit of conceptual legerdemain off, they said that the government has the right to list the citizens, because such listing is (get ready now) "not punitive" because the government isn't the agent causing the listee problems. It's the other citizens, businesses, etc. doing it, you see. That whole... can't get a job, a place to live, credit, being the targets of posters on telephone poles, the occasional outright mugging or murder, and of course, being driven to suicide. Not the government's problem or responsibility.
Since, the justices said, while giving each other dancing hip shots on the head of this particular pin, such listing (cough) isn't punitive, it doesn't violate ex post facto, which explicitly forbids either the states or the feds from changing a punishment by adding to it after it has already been set at sentencing (among other things.)
Of course this concept -- the idea that such listing isn't punitive -- is utterly nonsensical, but the thing is, it is nonsensical at the level of the supreme court, which makes it a formidable thing to overturn (practically, it makes it almost impossible, actually.)
What falls out of it, though, is a magical government right to put citizens on all kinds of lists without their consent, and without any judicial process whatsoever, regardless of the consequences that fall out of such listing in trying to pursue one's life.
From this, we get no-fly lists, where the government isn't stopping you from flying, it's the airline; the no-buy lists, where the government isn't stopping you from buying, it's the car dealer or other dealer; the terrorist list, where the government isn't stopping you from getting a job, it's the employer, and so forth.
This is just one of many fine examples of why we should not tolerate the "re-interpretation" of constitutional issues by the people in the courts. The constitution obviously means exactly what it says; it is the literally the constituting authority for the government; therefore, the government does not have the authority to do anything that is outright forbidden in the constitution, not directly, and not by invoking this kind of legalistic bullshittery. If the people want to change something in the constitution, that's what article five is for.
So while the argument that the government "should" go through judicial process to commit these harms to the citizens and others within our borders is sound, sensible, and constitutionally obvious, the supreme court has made it a non-starter.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.