Slashdot Mirror
FBI Leaves Cleared Names On Terrorist Watch List
x_IamSpartacus_x writes "According to a recent FOIA request the FBI doesn't always take names off of the Terrorist Watch List even when those people have been cleared of charges or had charges dropped. 'If an individual is acquitted or charges are dismissed for a crime related to terrorism, the individual must still meet the reasonable suspicion standard in order to remain on, or be subsequently nominated to, the terrorist watch list,' the once-classified memorandum says. The New York Times is running a story about it as well, saying the data is even used by local police officers to check names during traffic stops."
Innocent until proven guilty inversed to the extreme: guilty until proven completely, absolutely, with a cherry on top innocent?
Since it is not necessary to be charged with anything to get on the list, it would be logical that being acquitted would not get you off the list.
That information shouldn't be available to police officers who are running people's plates, etc., because it will subject them to additional scrutiny. The presumption of innocence is something that's been badly eroded thanks to this bullsh*t about terrorism. Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving -- and we don't have a 'suspected drunk driver' watch list. When the government has lists for everything that has a greater loss of life and property, then we can talk about 'terrorism'.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The FBI should keep people on the watch list if they think he/she is probably guilty, even if they have a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
That said, the watch list as is, is worthless. Too many names - particularly without pictures or at least age/gender/description - are worse than not enough.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This just confirms the fears of such a list at the time it was created.
We have a police state.
If you don't have a badge, you have no rights.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
And even then, we'll update the bad guy list you're on... later... after coffee
crazy dynamite monkey
No, actually, guilty until finally proven guilty.
Justice will never give up. There's no escaping. Since there's no accusation that doesn't have some grain of truth, the accusation is enough to prove guilt. Besides, prosecuting and tracking innocent people would be unfair, so everyone we track and prosecute must be guilty; surely you don't think we're anything other than unscrupulously fair, right? I mean, thinking like that is a sure sign of disloyalty and latent terroristic intent.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The police forces work for the executive branches of government. They investigate and suspect people and when they feel they have enough evidence to make a conviction, they arrest and submit their case (and the suspect(s)) to another branch of government for trial.
I see no reason why, once processed by this other branch of government, the police forces need to stop being suspicious and watchful.
That said, it is highly inappropriate that there are no checks and balances against these government actions and programs like watch lists, no fly lists and so on. It removes much of the constitutional design of our government. Due process is critical to a civilized nation. Without it, citizens will not have peaceful recourse and they will take the only remaining options instead.
I don't know why they couldn't release the names of the people on the watchlist.
If you're on, you find out fast enough once you try to board a plane.
My Discovery of America is probably my favourite story of this persistent debacle-- and its events occurred in 1985, not 2011!
The article implies that someone could be on the much more onerous Do Not Fly list, where you are banned from getting on a plane at all, when they have not been convicted of a crime. Supposedly, there are 500 American citizens on that list. For all practical purposes, that is a prohibition from being able to freely travel. There are plenty of places where an airliner is the only practical way to get there in a reasonable time. In fact, more broadly, out of all possible destinations on the globe most of them are only really reachable by airliner starting from any other point.
Perhaps those 500 people actually have warrants out for their arrest, and they are considered high enough priority to be added to the list. (since at any given time in the U.S., there must be millions of people with a warrant out on them for something, but apparently you can take a domestic flight despite most possible warrants)
In the United States Legal system, you get charged, thrown in jail, and then you have to post bond and hire a lawyer (or risk defending yourself) to get the charges dropped if you are innocent. If you are guilty, you get charged, thrown in jail, and you post bond, your conviction depends on the size of your wallet and what kind of legal defense you can get. OJ Simpson is a classic example, there are countless others.
Here's the thing... the CIA, NSA, FBI are all getting massive amounts of funding from the tax payer, but... we don't know if they're working. Obviously 9/11 wasn't stopped, a few bombs have been found, never by the previous 3 agencies, more like by a local cop who heard ticking. I've got to wonder if these agencies have switched their directive from protecting us from threats abroad to protecting us from ourselves without our consent.
People abroad are just trying to live their lives just like we are, nobody is f'in stupid enough to sail their battleships at us and try to take us over for obvious reasons (ICBM anyone?)
These agencies were at their prime during the cold war when they were focused on the russians, rather than United States Citizens.
So now what? Read the article, that's the present day FBI... all of it, they have nothing better to put man hours into than harassing US citizens and catching pedos, while the latter is a great service, is the FBI the most efficient for this?
If someone was put on a list, charged with crimes and then cleared I would consider that person to be a risk for being a terrorist. They're probably pretty cross with the US of A after going through all that and might try to get revenge.
If a mobster gets a not guilty verdict at a trial, does the FBI have to destroy their dossier on him? Of course not. It's their job to keep tabs on people they consider dangerous. If a terrorist gets a not guilty verdict on the grounds that the prosecution's case was based on illegally obtained information, then the FBI should absolutely keep him on the watch list.
It is good that people can't be locked up unless proven guilty of a crime, even if those people have associated with known terrorist groups.
It is also good that law enforcement officers can keep an eye on people that have associated with known terrorist groups, even if those people haven't actually committed a crime.
Innocent until proven guilty inversed to the extreme: guilty until proven completely, absolutely, with a cherry on top innocent?
You erroneously equate standards used to put a person in prison with standards used to watch a person. For many years there was no evidence to convict Al Capone of being a gangster but there was a "reasonable suspicion" that led to Al and his minions being observed. You seem to be implying such observations were illegitimate.
That said, are there truly innocent (legally not guilty != innocent) people unjustly on the list? I'm sure there are. Are there other bureaucratic or administrative blunders? I'm sure there are. However these are issues quite separate from having only a "reasonable suspicion standard" for observation. A poor implementation of a reasonable idea does not mean we should ditch the idea, rather we should improve the implementation.
If they weren't guilty they wouldn't be suspect.
Agent Rogersz: Good evening, Otto. This is Agent Rogersz. I'm going to ask you a few questions. Since time is short and you may lie, I'm going to have to torture you. But I want you to know, it isn't personal.
Otto: This isn't really necessary. I'll tell you anything you want to know.
Leila: I don't think he knows.
Agent Rogersz: Increase the voltage!
Leila: But what if he's innocent?
Agent Rogersz: No one is innocent. Proceed.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Just because you've been cleared or acquitted doesn't mean you'll think about becoming a terrorist in the future! We're just keeping the rest of the
public safe from your future impure thoughts!
If you look at all those detainees released from GitMo, you'll find a lot of them, 25%, have wound up being captured or KiAs so it stands to the governments backward logic that once you're on the list, you stay on the list.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
That's what I'm thinking. How are you able to be targeted for "suspicion"?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
They never delete their data on you.
Person A is "reasonably suspected" of a terrorist crime but not charged because the prosecutor knows he can prove guilt "almost but not quite" up to the standard of "reasonable doubt" and if it goes to a jury there will be an acquittal. The person is put on the watch list.
Person B is charged and acquitted because the jury had "reasonable doubt" and is kept on the watch list.
While I personally think the standard for being on the watch list in the first place should be about the same as the standard to get a conviction, the reality is, it's not. Since it's not, it's reasonable that SOME people will meet the standard for getting/staying on the watch list but not meet the standard for a criminal conviction. Whether these people were never brought to trial or whether they were acquitted because the prosecution "almost but not quite" proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt does not change whether they meet the standard for being on the watch list.
==
Of course, there are many other reasons people on the watch list aren't brought to trial. Perhaps the investigation is ongoing. Perhaps they are out of the country. Etc. etc. SOME of these people would be convicted if brought to trial.
==
As I said before, the terror watch-list and similar lists should have a standard of proof similar to that of a criminal conviction, particularly for people who are in the United States and are not evading being served notice of a hearing.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Well I am not going to complain about this because I don't want to be added to the list. :-)
As official spokesman for the FBI, I wish to inform you that we have implemented a new opt-out program to address your concerns. If you wish to opt out of the watch list, simply let us know and we will remove you from it. Simple, huh?
But we won't stop there. Want to be taken off our list of people who were once on the watch list? No problem! Just say the word.
But maybe that's not enough. Maybe you want to get taken off the list of people who were once on the list of people who were on the watch list. Seems a little paranoid, but fine.
Still not satisfied? Just keep making opt-out requests until you're happy. Hell, you can even have us opt you out once every millisecond. What more do you people want?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
It's nice to know this. Eventually we'll all be on the list, and then it'll just formalize what's been the case all along. And hey added bonus then when Wikileaks publishes the list, we all can tell who the truly dangerous people are because they're the only ones with the influence to not be on the list.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
"The New York Times is running a story about it as well saying the data is even used by local police officers to check names during traffic stops."
Agent Smith: We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start. All that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known terrorist to justice.
IT Professional.
In a time of war or global conflict, it is pretty safe to assume that there are shifts with sentiments as much as shifts with policies. Grudges held against a captor can always prompt a sense or need to somehow get even, even if the person of interest was rightfully detained in the first place.. Therein lies a reason that it is always preferable to treat a detainee with a certain amount of dignity. Rather than turn one into an outright enemy who may have not been one origionally or may have been on the fence still deciding.
Add to the many variables the fact that the militaries and policy makers ultimately must adhere to a higher set of standards and guidelines in regards to discretion when determining what would normally be a right guaranteed to the general population, for instance, would not be such under the UCMJ, (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Or, likewise the Pro-active Police force actions and possible martial law actions, curfews, checkpoints, random searches and identity checks, that all seem excessive unless you are in the middle of protecting yourself and others as well as the general population from very real dangers.
People, we are so lucky to be able to walk or drive to the grocery store without being pulled over or detained for umpteen months, that is some of us. This is War, and we are always just a heartbeat away from something really bad happening. Take heart and don't complain too much. It will get worse. To that, we should rest our confidence on and walk with a sense of alertness. Treating authorities with respect goes a long way also.
It used to be that you were innocent until proven guilty, then you were guilty until proven innoven, and now you are still guilty even when proven innocent. So much for democracy in action.
During the French revolution you could be "denounced" then beheaded.
During the 1917 Russian revolution you could be "denounced" then shot or tortured, then shot.
During Stalin's pogroms everybody was denouncing everybody else, they were all shot.
The Nazi's turned government sponsored murder into a form of industry.
Why do you think that older people who have a good grasp of history say that this (Homeland/Security/Terrorism theater) can only lead to Interment camps and execution squads?
If you trust ANY government you are a FOOL!
Keep your bags packed, money hidden and a spare passport ready, because no matter how egregious the evil, it's all "for your protection"!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Meh - Let's just put everybody on the list; this way, we can be absolutely, 100% certain that we have all the bad people on the list. Efficiency.
We live in an era where an accusation is enough to damage somebody's career, even their life. No proof needed, no evidence, nothing. Just the accusation.
Some years ago I found myself on the wrong end of a sexual harassment complaint. It was completely baseless, the result of a 3rd party misinterpreting something that was none of their business in the first place. The other person was just as horrified as I was. Nevertheless, the only response I could offer was on my knees begging to keep my job. And it proved, in the long run, to be career-limiting.
Imagine the consequences if something really had happened. Ouch.
CIA and FBI as well as pretty much all other 3 letter agencies need to be abolished. That's why Ron Paul is being shunned by the MSM - because they are being pressured by all those agencies as well as by corporations that stand to lose various privileges and government contracts (especially the military and people involved in destroying your liberties and your money.)
You can't handle the truth.
The one thing that I love about these articles is that they always bring out the paranoids who believe that we are days away from living in a totalitarian state simply because they have studied certain chapters in their history books and ignored others.
FBI puts never accused and never convicted people on the watch list? I mean if you can put anyone on it for any reason why is it a surprise they keep people on it after trials?
We have you right where we want you, meek and scared. Please leave your Liberty at the door, walk right in, get in queue over there, we'll give you your ID number and your occupational specialty. Then get in that line and we'll screen you with your urine sample to determine whether or not you use any substances that may somehow render your unable to work in our eyes.
It's all about control, folks, and you've lost every shred of it.
+1 Cardinal Richelieu.
âoeIf you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang himâ.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
And what if I call your name in as a faulty tip, and the tip is cleared as bogus, ...
Then the name should be removed from the list.
On the other hand, if a person did indeed do nothing more than attend "summer camp" in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal regions then they probably should be on a list. How to treat people on that list is an entirely different discussion.
I fear your comment has already been taken seriously by our government.
At least we're safe now.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
The situation the OP proposed is entirely reasonable,...
What?!?
This is what the OP said:
If a terrorist gets a not guilty verdict on the grounds that the prosecution's case was based on illegally obtained information, then the FBI should absolutely keep him on the watch list.
So, you and the OP are assuming that:
1. Law enforcement is always right when they arrest someone and they have no other motives than getting the "bad guy".
2. Prosecutors only prosecute guilty people and they never make mistakes either or are swayed by political ambition. Here's an example of a prosecutor with a lot of ambition who went after the wrong (read as rich kids who had the means to fight bogus charges and system) people.
Or have a look at the peaceful protestors in NY right now who are being assaulted and battered by police.
Please, the system is corrupt and when a society and government have secret lists, it makes a mockery of our "free" and "open" society. And until these asinine lists that allow stupid people to feel safe are disposed of, we are not a free country.
Since when do you need to be actually charged with something to be on the watch list?
... which has nothing to do with the contents of the lines, and everything to do with the concept of forgery.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Big brother needs to watch you for the good of all.
Since there's no accusation that doesn't have some grain of truth, the accusation is enough to prove guilt.
Yep. As my years of reading the Daily Mail have taught me, there's no smoke without a paedophile.
Everyone who is stopped needs to publicly post their name in some central place.
This could become a list for people to check to see if they are on the list. Before you ask the FBI in a FOI request, you could check the list.
If your name IS on the list, you could allow extra time.
Oh dear- my name, John R Smith is on the list. I am not a senator who can get my name removed, so I need to allow 4 hours on check in on a airline.
And I love people who look the other way when the government tramples on its citizens because they prefer to live in a world where the U.S. is "the good guys" even if that world is a fantasy.
And no holiday images of children without an arsonist.
>the individual must still meet the reasonable suspicion standard in order to remain on, or be subsequently nominated to, the terrorist watch list
Reasonable suspicion includes:
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Then you go to the list called "These names were suspected of terrorism, but absolutely nothing was found. Yet."
I'll only rest my eyes for a bit.
Absolutely correcto on this.
Unfortunately for the "statists", we will have a revolution at one of two stages and they will be dumped.
#1: Ballot box throws them out.
#2: Physical revolution throws them out.
History books are clear on this. I read those certain chapters and watched all those states that have fallen. Some will fall again and again.
Hey, I don't rock the boat and they don't bother me, just like the most of us. Only 3.1 % of the US adult population under correctional supervision (prison, parole or probation) - surely that doesn't count as a police state. After all, we are here freely discussing US policy without anyone looking over us (not counting the NSA of course). And protest in the real world is simarly allowed by the police, which is quite a difference to the real police states in the world.
No. Richelieu meant that his Inquisition was capable of finding "heresy" within any six lines of any man's speech. They did not have to forge anything, merely "see" what they read with a sufficient fervor via a sufficiently fanatical eye of a religious zealot. The torture of the suspect, or his family, was guaranteed extract a signed "confession" later.
It is no coincidence that the main villain in Dumas' books is an evil religious nut, supported by a blood-thirsty, nearly all-powerful (at the time) fanatical religious cult with a prominent sadistic streak and a healthy apetite for yet more power and wealth, at all costs.
We're still a free society, just that some (government officials/employees) are more equal than others (the "little" people.)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
This is true for almost all prosecutors as well. The assumption is guilty until proven innocent, and even then a formal protest must be made. Their job is to find guilt. Those who are elected or hired by elected officials have an interest in finding everyone guilty, because if you "lose" a case (someone is found to not be guilty) then you are being soft on crime or not effective enough and are in danger of losing your job. Even then it's better in their eyes to have at least tried to convict one than to let someone go. Doesn't necessarily mean convicting on the most serious charge, even a plea bargain is enough to get a win on the books. In other words, the prosecutor's job is not to find out the truth.
The Justice Department, as well as most police departments, are hand in hand with prosecutors. They're supposed to be distinct entities but the bias slips through.
A National "Law Enforcement" Data-Base was begun in the later 1960's. It has been expanded in all ways made possible by addition, accretion and technology since its introduction. All law enforcement agencies, and many others, have access, increasingly easily and readily as communication technology has increased facility. Restrictions of access to the data-base are per local rules. Local files tend to be automatically uploaded, virtually as in exchange for search. Local agencies may be able to restrict data upload, to keep, for example, local traffic or juvenile, education and such files from uploading to the national data-base, but most likely not effectively. "Infraction" and "juvenile" are flag terms, but normally-on or normally-off will be settable.
All data that is uploaded to the data-base is, or should be, considered permanent record, always there, never erased, never fully erasable. Early on some was routinely erased, but as storage space increased the better-to-have-what's-not-needed-than-not-have-what-is perspective has prevailed. In any case, since the all data is downloadable by all agencies and offices, the Wikileaks Cables paradigm should be assumed, per which it must be assumed that copies of any evolution were made by someone, which copy may be accessed and read by someone curious.
Any and all police records identified by any number, SS, DL, Booking number, Event or Incident Report, Citation, summons, service, case, etc. number, and so on, can be obtained in correlation to any of those numbers. Numbers tend to be cross-index between, sometimes with codes to indicate when and what agency's records contain additional data. There are, of course, wrong numbers and erroneous entries, which become permanent unerasable parts of the records, too.
This is the 21st century, the computer age. Data, including errors, is easy to store, records are easy to clone-copy. Corrections of errors require expensive human-time to correct. You have to assume any record ever made about you is kept in copies in various somewheres, errors and all. Several of these somewheres are unknown and don't know, themselves, they have the data, or care. Most will never search to learn they have, or what they have. In most locations your data will remain until the media storing it degenerates, disintegrates and rots.. Some of the data stored is stored in digital storage forms the storers no longer have software, or hardware, to read.
The consequence of all this is that since the advent of unlimited digital storage availability, we the citizens of Earth's advanced cultures have all been, and are being, progressively "microchipped". The difference between our real-event microchipping and science-fiction's microchip implanting scenarios is that our microships are implanted not in us, but in tens of thousands of copies in as many upload and download locations, in thousands of different computer systems. Some copies are authorized copies, some are unauthorized, including copies downloaded by private parties, corporations, government agencies and interested-for-any-reason emplooyees of those, and a variety of foreign government, corporate, NGO, curious and even hit-it-lucky kiddie, hackers' computers and storage banks.
Today we are cells of our societies. Our personal electronic records are our individual electronic celular DNA. They are what make us us. Make you 'you' and me 'me' in the society around us, and in the narratives invented by any others anywhere else that searches for 'you' or for 'me' may bring our records up, purposely, per curiousity, or accidentally.
Local police have forever been retaining records for people that have been detained but found not to be involved, either by investigators or actual court. ( even random traffic stops, other than those invasive slippery slope seat-belt 'enforcement' road blocks, and i even wonder about who's taking pictures of license plates )
They retain in your record statements, pictures, prints, even DNA in many cases.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This may be relevant.
Your sig is eerily prophetic, relative to this story. Maybe substitute out "Net" with "Government lists"? (BTW, my version is "Once it's in the Google aether, it never goes away").
Yeah. And they don't remove names from the Do Not Fly List either. If you give them more information when they ask for it, they'll just squirrel it away without removing you.
Guilty until proven rich is a pretty old concept.
Actually, Constitutionally, not guilty == innocent. Watching someone forever for the slightest slip-up defies that Constitutional mandate.
You are wrong, in both the constitutional and legal sense.
"Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent
Since there's no accusation that doesn't have some grain of truth, the accusation is enough to prove guilt.
And I guess that statement itself counts as such an accusation. Call it circular logic, but at least it's internally consistent!
The enemies of Democracy are
The presumption of innocence is neatly wrapped up in the Amendments to the Constitution and the "due process" incorporated by reference. It is connected to such a degree that you cannot evade innocent until proven guilty without violating the Constitution.
The presumption of innocence pertains to depriving a person of liberty or property. It obviously does not restrict the government from observing a person. Every person of interest is investigated while in the presumed innocent state.
No, actually, guilty until finally proven guilty.
Justice will never give up.
Huh! Double-speak already, eh? Miniluv and Minipeace?
(is that still justice?)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Except the USA has the Highest percentage of it's population in prison than Any other nation, including Iran, China, Russia, or any other Dictatorship or totalitarian government Anywhere. And protest freely allowed? Tell that to the people in the Wall Street protests who were maced while simply standing there, and that's just one example from the most recent lot of protests.
---
The one thing that I love about these articles is that they always bring out the paranoids who believe that we are days away from living in a totalitarian state simply because they have studied certain chapters in their history books and ignored others.
---
... as opposed to those who think there is no problem as they have ignored certain chapters of those same books, and studied others.
Justice will never give up.
You use the word 'justice'. I do not think it means what you think it means.
--
The one thing that I love about these articles is that they always bring out the paranoids who believe that we are days away from living in a totalitarian state simply because they have studied certain chapters in their history books and ignored others.
... as opposed to those who feel there is no problem as they have ignored certain chapters of their history books, while studying others.
--
It is far worse than that. Your 'name' not you is innocent until proven guilty. Pay careful attention to that fact that it is 'names' on a watch list not persons. If you share the same name you come under the same scrutiny.
I could be the underlying reality is, that how they treat people who get pulled up by this illegal (guilty until proven, whoops oh wait, guilty forever regardless) watch list has more to do with how common the name is, rather than any real evidence ie if too many people complain too often, they whole fishing expedition method of investigation will come apart at the seams.
So people are not penalised 'er' excluding being routinely delayed at police stops and, airports, being subject to humiliating and dehumanising physical searches and, you can bet routinely denied employment. All combined having a substantial impact of their life, just because they share a name with another suspect.
It seems the only real resort to clear yourself is ensure your name is globally unique.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The USA is not a police state. However, these stories are concerning because of the direction they suggest. Not that dodgy government watchlists are new or somehow confined to the US, but they show what can happen when law enforcement powers are not kept in check.
The biggest problem with these sorts of lists is because there are no working checks or balances, they are very easily abused for political intimidation. Don't think that happens? Of course it happens. Democracies are based on the assumption that informed debate amongst citizens leads to better decisions. When the government gets hold of easily abused tools like blacklists, it's not surprising to find random people who merely oppose the policy of the day end up being targeted.
Yes, we all are a danger to them.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Days away? Where have you been living for the last ten years? That's when criticizing republican actions became synonymous with treason.
Hitler is still on the list; so is Flash Gordon according to Schindler's list. The United Skates of America even has God on the List! God is a huge terrorist, Lightening, Hurricanes, Floods, Weapons of mother natures mass destruction etc
Whenver a government entity creates a list, for whatever purpose there seems to be the natural reaction for its scope to expand, usually either for CYA of government employees, or to make various politicans look good in the process. When you have so many people on a list, any list, it becomes pretty much useless since you can no longer quickly and accuratly detirmine who is friend and who is foe. So many travellers are stopped and harrased by our government because they have the same name as someone on the list, that the screeners even though they have a standard routine, probally eventually start to let things slip in the process and thats when you have your real problems.
I would love to see the ethnic and racial demographics between those given their rights back and those that will never receive them.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspect.
-
Justice will never give up.
This has nothing to do with Justice.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Why would anyone want to be removed from this list if they didn't have something to hide?
They want off the list. Therefore they find the attention being on the list attracts unwelcome. Therefore they are hiding something. Therefore they are guilty of something.
We just don't know what yet.
You only got two out of the three. Here's the whole list. Note the dates, some thing never change. As for the Ayn Rand quote - re: broken clocks and all.
"Give me three sentences written by the most innocent man, and I will find a reason to hang him"
Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.”
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865)
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
The best way to turn an ordinary person into a freedom fighter is for a Government agency to Harass them with False charges, invade our home, search us at airports, take away our rights to live without being controlled, They have taken away peoples gardens even with threat of huge fines.
How long do you think people will take it before we have a full blown rebellion here in the US?, and you know I think thats exactly what they are planning, what better way to reduce the population then to stop terrorist attacts (Oops, I mean Freedom Fighters)...
>> “There has been a lot of criticism about the watch list,” claiming that it is “haphazard,” he said. “But what this illustrates is that there is a very detailed process that the F.B.I. follows in terms of nominations of watch-listed people.”
Which is fine and all. But we don't believe you.
"This is War"
No this is security theater designed to suck as much money as possible into the black hole that is the black budget. You could call it a global police action if you like, all be it a police action using the military as well as the increasingly militarized domestic police agencies. The only real "war" is the one on our civil rights.
"Treating authorities with respect goes a long way also."
Which authorities? The ones that ignored or otherwise failed to stop 9/11, the ones who lied to Congress and the U.S. public to start a second war, the ones that turned a blind eye to repeated warnings of the wide spread fraud on Wall Street, or the ones who continually abuse peaceful protesters?
OH, OH, OH, I know the authorities that have proven beyond any doubt that three separate miracles happened on a single day when fire caused three different structural steel buildings to collapse when it had never happened before in the history of modern architecture. Three asymmetrical fires that caused three buildings to symmetrically collapse into their footprints. Those authorities?
"It can be held certain that information that is withheld or suppressed contains truths that are detrimental to the persons involved in the suppression."
-- J. Edgar Hoover
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
-- J. Edgar Hoover
I'm not sure how. You'd probably have to sue. Would the state secrets ruse be used to prevent the suit? If enough falsely accused people got together, maybe the ACLU would take the case?
"To stop the terrorists."
Let's just put everybody on the list; this way, we can be absolutely, 100% certain that we have all the bad people on the list.
This might be easier than most people think. Note that the "list" is a list of names. There have been lots of reports of people blocked from flying because their name was spelled the same (or almost the same) as the name of the person who was put on the list. They don't have to put everyone in America on the list; they only need to put every unique name on the list.
This is an old story with such government lists, whether they're to find commies or drug dealers or terrorists or whatever. They're usually a "name list", with one folder for everyone with the same name.
Some time back, I looked the Census Bureau's site, where there is a list of the most common American names, first and last, with the counts of the number of people with each name. If you type in your first and last name, they'll tell you how many people in the country have the same name. There are about 1800 people with my name, for example, ignoring middle names.
So there's a pretty good chance that I'm on lots of government lists, for all sorts of crimes and other suspicious actions that were done by some of those other people with my name.
Is your name unique? You might want to think about this before you use the "I haven't done anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide" reasoning. It doesn't matter what you do; what matters is what anyone with your name does.
Or a name somewhat like yours. Has anyone ever written your name down wrong, or called you with a name similar to yours but not quite the same? If so, then you might want to do a bit of worrying ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Exactly. My grandpa lived in Nazi Germany. As a non-German!
And according to him, we're already there!
One, you're assuming that he did kill someone. Two, there is such a thing as manslaughter.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."