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'.

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: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.

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.

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: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?

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: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.