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."

Comments

Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie never.

[Commontwist]

Innocent until proven guilty inversed to the extreme: guilty until proven completely, absolutely, with a cherry on top innocent?

Traffic stops and such

[girlintraining]

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'.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[Baloroth]

and we don't have a 'suspected drunk driver' watch list.

We do in Minnesota: "Whiskey Plates"

Re:Traffic stops and such

[drnb]

Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving

You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[mr1911]

Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving

You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.

You are assuming that the government would be able to stop it in any event.

Every act of "terror" thwarted since 9/11 has been due to ordinary citizens observing, and in many cases, acting. Your government overlords have done nothing but conditioned you unreasonable searches and unconstitutional "watch lists" are reasonable.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[Amouth]

so after two DWI's they put a W in front of the number? here we just revoke the licence (for 1year for first office for life after second)

Re:Traffic stops and such

[Obfuscant]

so after two DWI's they put a W in front of the number? here we just revoke the licence (for 1year for first office for life after second)

Hmm. So which is better? Assume that someone who has done something twice will be guilty of the same thing for the rest of his life and never let him drive again? Or let people around him know that he's been convicted of something twice so they can keep an eye on him and will be more likely to report suspicious driving (crossing the center line, crossing the fog line, sudden changes in speed, etc) but allow him to otherwise drive a car?

You know the W isn't for the cops, it is for the public. The cops have access to his driving history and can see everything, including tickets and DUIs.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[Amouth]

Right but DWI is completely and utterly avoidable. I understand the logic, first time was a bad decision on the drivers part - he has a year to learn from his mistakes. Second shows they don't care for the law and will do it anyways - so you take the privilege of driving away.

I'm of the mind that driving on public roads is a privilege to be earned via trust, not a right. If someone can't be trusted to follow the basics of motor vehicle safety they are show a disregard to the safety of others and putting others lives at risk for their own convince.

If they want to get drunk and go some place they can walk, ride a bike, call a cab, have a friend drive. But by no means should they be operating a car on public roads.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[am 2k]

In my country, DUI convicts who lose their license (which happens when they harm any person while in that state) just keep on driving without it... They can't lose it again, can they?

They're driving under the assumption that they aren't held up by the police anyways (otherwise, they wouldn't do it while drunk).

Re:Traffic stops and such

[sjames]

Unlike the terrorist watch list, at least the whiskey plates only happen after TWO actual convictions. Due process of law and an actual guilty finding, twice over.

The watch list just requires that some paranoid somewhere doesn't like the look of you. It would be as if you got whiskey plates because any cop anywhere thinks you look like you might like to party too much. You can't get rid of them even if a medical test shows you have never taken a drink in your life.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[Ocker3]

I'd support normal police having access to the Terror Watch List for traffic stops, if it wasn't so stupidly bloated and full of false positives. If it was a cleaner list, full of Actual persons of interest, you'd kick yourselves if the police issued some guy a traffic citation while he was wanted, and later he blew someone up.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[drnb]

Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving

You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.

You are assuming that the government would be able to stop it in any event. Every act of "terror" thwarted since 9/11 has been due to ordinary citizens observing, and in many cases, acting. Your government overlords have done nothing but conditioned you unreasonable searches and unconstitutional "watch lists" are reasonable.

I did a quick google and found:
"Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/30-terrorist-plots-foiled-how-the-system-worked

Two non-law enforcement foilings may be understating things, or maybe their definition of terrorism requires an international component. I'm thinking of a times square vendor who tipped off police to a domestic nutcase. In any case there are clearly many examples of government based foilings.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[silentbrad]

The watch list just requires that some paranoid somewhere doesn't like the look of you.

Or doesn't like your name.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[sabt-pestnu]

> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."

How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?

Re:Traffic stops and such

[drnb]

> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."

How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?

Zero.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[sabt-pestnu]

> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."

How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?

Zero.

Citation, please.

Re:Traffic stops and such

[drnb]

> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."

How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?

Zero.

Citation, please.

Did you miss the link that accompanied the quote? It details the 30 plots.

Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[gurps_npc]

I have to agree with what the FBI does. Courts declare that there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, if you think someone is probably guilty, but you have a reasonable doubt, you let him go.

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.

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[idontgno]

Most curtailment of rights without the limits of due process--including the due process of acquittal--is contrary to the Constitution. Some "curtailment" has been historically tolerated, and usually this type of debasement of Constitutional protections has been in the interests of "public safety" or "national security", so this looks like a winning combination unless some judge has the courage to call a spade an implement with which to bury civil and human rights.

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[Cro Magnon]

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.

I don't know about that. Obviously, anyone with a first, last, or middle name of "Hussien" is a security threat and should be on the terror list.

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[mean pun]

I don't know about that. Obviously, anyone with a first, last, or middle name of "Hussien" is a security threat and should be on the terror list.

Yeah, you just can't trust those dyslectics.

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[sjames]

And the Constitution says you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Do you recommend we scrap that old rag?

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[IgnoramusMaximus]

And the Constitution says you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Do you recommend we scrap that old rag?

Yes he does. But only for "those", you know, "other", dangerous people with dangerous ideas, who dress differently. And smell funny. Or speak some suspicious language. Actually, many like him believe that "those people" should be all in camps, or at least deported to Africa somewhere, for their own safety, naturally!

Not like you and I, true Patriots.

I mean you are a white, Christian or Jewish, Fox-watching on your 60" TV, American Football fanatic, NRA member, filled with awe of winners at Capitalism, owner (with mere 53 years on your 60 year mortgage left) of a McMansion in suburbia who does not leave that house without 5 credit cards, because you never know which one just might raise your limit some more! Are you not?

So you have nothing to worry about! Nothing at all!

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[sjames]

It is codified within it's amendments but not in those exact words. Hint, "due process" includes a presumption of innocence. Alas, some people are unable to comprehend paraphrase and summary. A few of those appear to have been raised by wolves and gain some sort of boost to their pathetic ego by calling people things like "fucktard".

I must conclude that your understanding of the Constitution is restricted to a shallow literal reading of the words.

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[AK Marc]

I never said that. Someone else made the 100% provably incorrect statement that the presumption of innocence is coded in the Constitution. I corrected him. That in no way indicates I think it's a bad idea, just that I'm quite aware it's a misunderstood principle. And apparently you don't understand either.

Re:Not Guilty is Not Innocent

[AK Marc]

Fuck you AC. You read the thread (or else, you shouldn't have come in half-way then claimed innocence via ignorance). And, being AC, prove you aren't the person that said it wasn't in the Constitution, who just switched to AC because you realized you were an incorrect jackass.

IOW: used to harass people

[denis-The-menace]

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.

Re:IOW: used to harass people

[MetalliQaZ]

Badge? I think you mean party member. Keep your comments double-plus good.

Re:IOW: used to harass people

[LordLimecat]

Comments like yours just piss me off. Not because there isnt perhaps some merit to your sentiment, or that you could have dragged a meaningful point out of your post; no, its the fact that you were unable to make a point without the most extreme kinds of hyperbole, which just drags the entire conversation down.

Not to mention how insulting it is for people in one of the freer examples of society in human history complaining that they have NO rights. If you had "no rights", you wouldnt be on slashdot complaining about the government. Im sure Liu Xiaobo would be THRILLED to think you have it as bad as it gets.

If you want to make a point about the erosion of rights, or the dangers of government powers with no oversight, do so. Dont go off the deep end spouting hyperbole nonsense.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[decipher_saint]

And even then, we'll update the bad guy list you're on... later... after coffee

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[idontgno]

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.

This makes plenty of sense

[erroneus]

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.

Re:This makes plenty of sense

[russotto]

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.

Where they make statements designed to obtain a conviction (regardless of the truth of such statements), which are accepted unquestioningly over the testimony of others, because the police wear snazzy uniforms and can lie with a straight face.

The word of a cop is proof beyond reasonable doubt of your guilt. So if these lists get you noticed by cops, you're going to be convicted even if you're 100% innocent.

Re:This makes plenty of sense

[sjames]

Because their suspicions were found to be unwarranted by that other branch or in some cases, their own additional evidence convinced them that they couldn't win in court. If you can be suspected forever in spite of evidence and reason to the contrary and if that suspicion can have real consequences (like being barred from flying or marked for extra gate rape) then it defies the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

If the Constitution is null and void, then so is the United States and the FBI.

What's the big secret?

[nbauman]

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.

Absolutely nothing new, unfortunately.

[Bieeanda]

The US government has kept a list of 'undesirables' for decades, going far back beyond the current abusive relationship with terrorism accusations. They just used to call it the Red List, because it was originally intended to keep commies out.

My Discovery of America is probably my favourite story of this persistent debacle-- and its events occurred in 1985, not 2011!

Re:Absolutely nothing new, unfortunately.

[Cant use a slash wtf]

Funny you should mention that. I actually know a guy who couldn't get into the US for years because he was high up in the Communist Party of Australia. That's all changed now though, as terrorism, rather than communism, has become the flavour-of-the-month for politicians.

Constitutional?

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[Synerg1y]

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?

Makes sense to me...

[NevarMore]

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.

Re:Makes sense to me...

[denis-The-menace]

This makes senses since the USA has nothing but Good Guys(tm) running the government. Therefore the list is perfect and is never used to punish people that pissed off people in power or money.

Re:Makes sense to me...

[sjames]

So you're saying we should just do away with that whole court thing and tell law enforcement to just go ahead and lock people up based on their best judgement?

Re:Makes sense to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying we should just do away with that whole court thing and tell law enforcement to just go ahead and lock people up based on their best judgement?

GP is either sarcasm or mouth breather stupidity. Whilst the latter does exist, I like to hope it is relatively uncommon in places like this.

Re:Makes sense to me...

[cheekyjohnson]

That's not always possible or simple if the thing in question is easily abused to begin with. You have to minimize the abuse by setting up checks and balances.

What's wrong with this?

[artor3]

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.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[bigtrike]

And what if I call your name in as a faulty tip, and the tip is cleared as bogus, but you suddenly no longer have the same rights and privileges as everyone else?

Re:What's wrong with this?

[bberens]

I'm okay with them doing what they do right up until it infringes on a person's rights to do things like travel throughout the country... or even out of the country.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Virtucon]

It's not a "dossier" it's a File in this country. You sound like somebody from France! Papers Please!

Re:What's wrong with this?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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.

I think Kevin Bacon linked to Al Qaeda nicely sums up the problem there. Particularly if the "linking" is done in secret, without any rules of evidence.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Virtucon]

You have rights, those don't go away but now you're on the list. Just think of it as the FBI friending you on Facebook and you'll be fine.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[amRadioHed]

That would be wrong, but is that what is happening? The situation the OP proposed is entirely reasonable, the situation you propose is not. Unless we know which is nearer to what is actually happening we can't very well judge if it's wrong or not.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[mr1911]

So, what flavor is the Kool Aid?

Re:What's wrong with this?

[SleazyRidr]

If people on the watch list were still allowed to travel on airplanes (like people under police investigation) then I'd agree with you.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[sjames]

That and being forever flagged for the extended pat-down at the airport or even actually barred from flying.

Let's try an experiment. Tell us your real name and address and we'll phone in a few anonymous tips. You can report back on how you hadn't noticed.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[sjames]

Well, let's see. Being acquitted isn't enough and having the charges dismissed (meaning the evidence is so weak that it's not worth a trial) isn't enough. It seems questionable if anything is enough to get off the list.

Just how long must such a person be on "unofficial probation"?

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Virtucon]

Having had a few clearances and background checks in my past, I'm on a few lists so don't worry. I'm just not on any of the "black" lists..

Look, the government has invested billions in information intelligence and even what I type right now is probably going through some filters looking for keywords. You just don't know about it *now* but it'll come out in a story 10 years from now. That's how governments work, what you don't know won't hurt you. Trust us but if we come knocking on your door at night, that's when you start worrying. Oh wait, they do that now don't they?

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Virtucon]

Strawberry with a hint of Cyanide.

You confuse prison with observation

[drnb]

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.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[SleazyRidr]

You make a very good point, that it's not so much the standards of getting people on to this list which is the problem. The problem is how supposedly 'innocent' people are treated. Preventing a person from flying should only happen when you have sufficient evidence to indicate that they intend on doing something. That amount of evidence should then be used to get them convicted, rather than taking the half-assed measure of putting them on a no-fly list.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[sjames]

Actually, Constitutionally, not guilty == innocent. Watching someone forever for the slightest slip-up defies that Constitutional mandate. Watching someone even after solid evidence actually demonstrates their innocence (as opposed to merely failing to establish guilt or even failing to provide enough evidence to even attempt to establish guilt) can only be the result of irrationality.

They are actually in paranoid schizophrenic territory: "I know A is out to get me! Don't you see the way he wears that red tee shirt? He must be stopped!!". No amount of investigation or reasoning can dissuade the delusions. The problem is that these bozos have enough authority and guns to be a genuine danger to the unfortunate and innocent Mr. A.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[AK Marc]

Put it in the Libertarian framework. The government stepping in to prevent a person previously suspected of something, but not currently a suspect in any crime, from completing a contract with another entity. The government is blocking two willing participants from engaging in trade, with no evidence that a crime was even committed, let alone anyone there was involved in the unknown crime. Libertarians everywhere should be up in arms to get the government out of this free enterprise.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[Rogerborg]

Which Constitution are you talking about? I'm not familiar with the "dude has to be proven guilty before we can get the evidence to prove dude's guilt" clause in the US Constitution. Hint: the Constitution you wrote in fifth grade Civics doesn't really count.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[drnb]

I understand your sentiment and I agree to a certain point. Getting put on a no-fly list should not be done in a casual manner, however I don't think the evidentiary requirement should approach that required for conviction. For example if someone attended certain types of training camps in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal areas I am fine with not allowing that person to get on a plane bound for the US. There are actions that are legal yet sufficiently suspicious or undesirable that disallowing certain privileges, flying to the US in this case, are reasonable. Emphasizing flying to a country being a privilege not a right.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[sjames]

The one that requires due process.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[drnb]

The one that requires due process.

Clue: Investigating and observing a person is part of that due process. The US Constitution merely puts some restrictions on that investigation. Compelling a person to testify against themselves and having probable cause (a standard well short of proof) before searching a home are notable examples. Observing their public activities, like traveling, and interviewing them in a public space, like in the airport, are allowed.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[sjames]

Sure. However, it also calls for the investigation and observation to end once it fails to demonstrate guilt, such as when it goes to court and there uis a finding of not guilty or when charges are dropped due to insufficient evidence.

At some point, repeated compulsory interviews move from a legitimate tool of investigation supported by probable cause to a simple extralegal harassment.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[Rogerborg]

You must be new here, but have you actually ever read the Bill of Rights? Here's what you're presumably referring to: "No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Ah, sweet liberty, which means all things to all readers. Of course, in the original Klingon, it meant nothing more than being safe from incarceration, but doubtless you interpret it to mean liberty to scream "fire!" while being ass spelunked by your gay llama husband in the business class section of a 747.

I'm really baffled as to this bizarre belief that the State requires "due process of law" in order to first investigate a subject, or that being found not guilty of one offence means that you can't be suspected of another.

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[sjames]

Don't be silly. Why DON'T you believe that being either banned from air travel or flagged for extra gate rape AND for extra checking at any traffic stop, etc might be considered a deprivation of liberty? It's a lot like being on probation, only you were never found guilty of anything.

I believe that being found not guilty of a particular offense makes further watching for that very same offense problematic. This isn't the littering, jay walking, petty theft and terrorism watchlist, now is it? If you weren't involved in terrorism up to last month, what are the odds that you suddenly are now?

Due process also governs the whole process of investigation and (if applicable) arrest. That's why Constitutional violations there can get your charges dismissed in court.

At some point, the continued surveillance of a person in spite of a continuing lack of solid evidence that they're committing a crime becomes a "fishing expedition". Judges frown on those exactly because they are a violation of rights. The exact place that line is drawn is a bit gray, but after being found not guilty is certainly on the wrong side of it.

Why are you so anxious to implement a mini-STASI? They just watched everyone, right? If you weren't breaking the law you had nothing to fear from the STASI, right?

Re:You confuse prison with observation

[SleazyRidr]

I'd agree with that too! If however you look at some of the stories we've seen about the watch list, then you'd see that even that level of "evidence" isn't being used.

* I'm not using the scare quotes around evidence to sound like I don't really believe it, I'm just concerned that the word evidence has a specific meaning, and I'm not sure of the other word that would apply in this situation.

All suspects are guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

If they weren't guilty they wouldn't be suspect.

"Repo Man" FBI Agents

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Oh sure...

[Virtucon]

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.

Re:Oh sure...

[radtea]

If you look at all those detainees released from GitMo, [cnn.com] 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.

Conversely, we can conclude that 75% of them did nothing but happen to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time? Not counting the illegally detailed child soldiers like Omar Kadr, of course.

Re:Oh sure...

[Virtucon]

They were all guilty and that kid I know has a suspected background of selling Lemonade to Al Qaida. Do I accept that our government has suspended the rights of GitMo detainees, no, it's wrong but has the current administration done anything about it? Close it in a year? Nope, not done. What about all those trials that Holder said were going to be done of the detainees? Oh wait, that flopped too so while GitMo is an abomination it's going to take a long time to straighten it out and nobody in the Federal Government seems pressed to do anything about it.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[bluefoxlucid]

That's what I'm thinking. How are you able to be targeted for "suspicion"?

The FBI is like Facebook

[Dinghy]

They never delete their data on you.

At least it's consistent

[davidwr]

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.

FBI optout program

[bitt3n]

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?

Good thing, too

[smellsofbikes]

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.

Mr. Neo.

[hel1xx]

"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.

Guilty

[DaMattster]

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.

Re:Guilty

[AK Marc]

We kept voting them in. That is exactly democracy in action. Go unwashed masses!

Read your history..

[Paracelcus]

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"!

Re:Read your history..

[kevinNCSU]

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?

Because they have a less firm grasp of the slippery slope fallacy?

Re:Read your history..

[Paracelcus]

You sir have a firm grasp of the current situation!
(applause)!

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[scottrocket]

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.

Of-course they do

[roman_mir]

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.)

The one thing that I love about these articles ...

[MacTO]

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.

Welcome to the Corporate States of America...

[Eggplant62]

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.

Re:Welcome to the Corporate States of America...

[Captain Sarcastic]

Well, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free
Just as long as I toe the party line, and carry my ID
So won't you kneel down next to me, so we can begin to pray?
'Cause there ain't no doubt we've lost this land - God help the USA!

(With appropriate apologies to Mr. Greenwood)

Re:guilty until finally proven guilty

[TaoPhoenix]

+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.

"summer camp" in somalia

[drnb]

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.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[mr1911]

I fear your comment has already been taken seriously by our government.

At least we're safe now.

You're assuming the system is perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Dropped Charges?

[roachdabug]

Since when do you need to be actually charged with something to be on the watch list?

Re:guilty until finally proven guilty

[X0563511]

... which has nothing to do with the contents of the lines, and everything to do with the concept of forgery.

You ARE my Subjects: You must submit.

[BoRegardless]

Big brother needs to watch you for the good of all.

Re:makes sense

[thelexx]

I think you meant Comrade.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[julesh]

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.

Re:The one thing that I love about these articles

[dbet]

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.

Reasonable Suspicion

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>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:

• Funny name
• Speaks funny language like French or some such we can't understand
• Wears funny clothes
• Once dated a girl from Athens (including Ohio and Georgia because we get confused)
• Traveled outside the US to any place except Tijuana
• Lives in California

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[black soap]

Then you go to the list called "These names were suspected of terrorism, but absolutely nothing was found. Yet."

Re:The one thing that I love about these articles

[Nihilomnis]

I'll only rest my eyes for a bit.

Re:The one thing that I love about these articles

[BoRegardless]

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.

Re:guilty until finally proven guilty

[IgnoramusMaximus]

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.

no no no no no...

[Lead Butthead]

We're still a free society, just that some (government officials/employees) are more equal than others (the "little" people.)

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[Darinbob]

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.

Nothing new here

[nurb432]

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.

Re:The one thing that I love about these articles

[sjames]

This may be relevant.

Re:guilty until finally proven guilty

[scottrocket]

"... once it's on the Net it's about as easy to remove as crazy glue on the ass of a rhino."

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").

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[Anonymous Coward]

Guilty until proven rich is a pretty old concept.

Not In the U.S. Constitution ...

[drnb]

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

Re:Not In the U.S. Constitution ...

[sjames]

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.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[Chris Burke]

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!

Presumption of innocence allows observation

[drnb]

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.

Re:Presumption of innocence allows observation

[sjames]

Since being on the list can include "no fly" status and certainly calls for being more thoroughly searched at the gate, there is a deprivation of liberty.

Re:Presumption of innocence allows observation

[black soap]

Depending on where you live, being unable to get on an airplane can be a severe limit on your liberty.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[c0lo]

No, actually, guilty until finally proven guilty.

Justice will never give up.

Huh! Double-speak already, eh? Miniluv and Minipeace?
(is that still justice?)

Re:The one thing that I love about these articles

[Ocker3]

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.

Re:The one thing that I love about these articles

[Anonymous Coward]

---

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.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[Jimbob The Mighty]

Justice will never give up.

You use the word 'justice'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[rtb61]

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.

Re:The one thing that I love about these articles

[IamTheRealMike]

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.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[davester666]

Yes, we all are a danger to them.

Racial

[ThatsNotPudding]

I would love to see the ethnic and racial demographics between those given their rights back and those that will never receive them.

All suspects are GUILTY!

[Hillgiant]

Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspect.

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[Tim C]

Justice will never give up.

This has nothing to do with Justice.

Insistence of Innocence only proves Guilt

[gsslay]

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.

It comes down to trust

[chiph]

>> “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.

How would you remove your name?

[memnock]

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?

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[jc42]

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 ...

Re:Eternally marked until forgiven by God--ie neve

[RockDoctor]

Since there's no accusation that doesn't have some grain of truth, the accusation is enough to prove guilt.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Racist with a Juris Doctor from DeVry

[Hognoxious]

O.J. was guilty of murder the moment he killed someone.

One, you're assuming that he did kill someone. Two, there is such a thing as manslaughter.