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?
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
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
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.
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
My Discovery of America is probably my favourite story of this persistent debacle-- and its events occurred in 1985, not 2011!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
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.
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.
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
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.
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.