Slashdot Mirror
The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist
Advocatus Diaboli sends this report: The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither "concrete facts" nor "irrefutable evidence" to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept. ...The heart of the document revolves around the rules for placing individuals on a watchlist. "All executive departments and agencies," the document says, are responsible for collecting and sharing information on terrorist suspects with the National Counterterrorism Center. It sets a low standard—"reasonable suspicion"—for placing names on the watchlists, and offers a multitude of vague, confusing, or contradictory instructions for gauging it. In the chapter on "Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria"—even the title is hard to digest—the key sentence on reasonable suspicion offers little clarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
I recently posted on social media how easy it would be to simply replace a DVD player on a laptop with explosives, clearly and simply showing the meaninglessness of the TSA's requirement to power on devices to get through security. I think it's perfectly likely that this, along with my consistent criticism of the US government and its policies, can put me on a list.
Conspirator just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? You can't be a terrorist unless you've actually done something terrorizing, so what the authorities have to do is predict, based on association, what you're going to do. And since we've all seen Minority Report, having to predict if someone is going to be a terrorist or not is a pretty lousy way to go about doing things.
The Hope and Change you voted for. No, I'm not saying that "The Guy With The (R)" would have been better. The (R) and the (D) are basically the same thing these days, just one is more honest about wanting a big all-encompassing nanny state.
If the (R) and the (D) people both hate someone then that person must be doing something the right way. Look for those kinds of people, like that guy Thad Cochran screwed in a primary election with underhanded, shady, and probably illegal tactics. When the establishment is devouring its own people in order to keep hold of power, the establishment needs to go.
and he ordered 100,000 on the deport list released on the street. Open borders, etc. Going nowhere fast.
“Instead of a watchlist limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future,”
I thought that was an exceptionally silly idea when it used in Captain America Winter Soldier. Is Armin Zola running the DHS ?
The overreach of this goal, is very worrisome. Especially when you consider that the inevitable failures will likely result in its promoters just doubling down on what they claim it needs to work.
Finally, silly bureaucratic holdups will no longer preclude Mr. Archibald Buttle's addition to the terror list!
Keep lowering the bar. Eventually it'll be so low that everyone will be a terrorist... and then what will there be left to terrify?
The whole freaking govt has become infected with "Nixon" disease. An enemies list to end all enemies lists.
Sounds like security clearance language. That is an odd sieve to use.
Not shocked at all. Which is sad.
Soon enough (if not already), they will have "reasonable suspicion" to add all Slashdot users to the list.
There are rules to label someone a psychopath.
They don't have to be applied to a natural person. The documentary "The Corporation" applied them to a juristical person. I think they can be applied to governments as well.
Whether the US Government matches these rules is a question which the reader may want to answer himself using the Wikipedia article on PCL-R:
Facet 1: Interpersonal
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Facet 2: Affective
Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Facet 3: Lifestyle
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Facet 4: Antisocial
Poor behavioral controls
Early behavioral problems
Juvenile delinquency
Revocation of conditional release
Criminal versatility
K. Kuhavy, Twibright Labs
In "The Changeling", the probe "Nomad" seeks to sterilize anything that is "imperfect" -- and of course, everything is imperfect to Nomad.
So essentially, *everyone* is a terrorist, and everyone is duty-bound to report their neighbors. Until everyone is watching everyone and we're all ready to shoot our neighbors to maintain the peace.
Those Aliens are coming to Mulberry street alright.
And I got to reference two 1960's TV shows that warned us of this very event, and we're too dumb to listen. Amurica f*ck Yeah!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
In an affidavit, Holder called them a “clear roadmap” to the government’s terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: “The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed could cause significant harm to national security.”
Is it that our Presidents have a knack for picking these guys or do lawyers develop shit for brains when they get that office? Bush has Ashcroft (Jack Booted thug) and then Gonzales (creative interpretations of the Constitution) and Obama has this guy with his double speak.
Bush had an excuse - he was just an MBA who got it by being a legacy.
Obama is a fucking Constitutional scholar!
See people, this is why we need civics in schools again - NOT programming or some other job training. Our Presidents over the last few decades have been running roughshod over the Constitution and people are OK with it because they do not know any better. I swear to god that the only things people know about the Constitution is freedom of religion and the right to bear arms.
I for one am glad they are continuing their rampant overreach.
The more they delve into the land of ridiculousness, like the McCarthy era "Un-American Activities" Lists, the quicker we will have those Congressional Hearings where it all blows up in their faces.
At least I hope history repeats itself...
...are as interesting as the actual lists of people.
I want to see what I am on, if anything. I want to see how I'm graded. I would proudly publish my rating.
My ex's family work and my activist past will almost certainly have me on some low interest lists, especially because I'm a non-citizen (actually, I left the US again several years ago), but I would really be interested to know what they say!
Sounds like security clearance language. That is an odd sieve to use.
Not at all. "Reasonable suspicion" is legal language, which is why they use it in both contexts. It is the minimum amount of information that a police officer (or other federal agent) can have to stop you on the street, even if they lack a warrant, without violating the Constitution. It basically means they have to point to specific facts that under the circumstances suggest you may be up to something criminal. (They don't have to identify those facts to you when they stop you, necessarily, but they can make a reasonable inquiry to dispel their suspicion.) Otherwise they have violated the Constitution, which doesn't help you a lot sometimes, but still sometimes results in either evidence they find being excluded or you being able to sue them.
Whether it should be the standard here is a different question, but the government wants it to be because it's a pretty low standard.
What's terrifying about this is, there has been a precedent set that being a "terrorist" voids your constitutional rights. If you're a terrorist, the US government can assassinate you, even if you're a citizen. They can lock you up indefinitely in secret prisons. They can spy on all of your communications, and conduct searches that are otherwise illegal. They can torture you. They can do anything they want in the name of "winning the War on Terror".
So once you have that kind of policy towards terrorism, there's only one thing, in theory, protecting your constitutional rights: a strict definition of 'terrorist'.
If terrorist have no rights, and anyone can be considered a terrorist, then nobody's rights are protected. Now someone might respond, "No, you still have your rights. You can speak freely, you can bear arms, there are no soldiers in your house, and the government isn't searching through your belongings." And you're right. I currently have all of those freedoms. However, if those freedoms are contingent on the will of a government official, and those freedoms can be arbitrarily taken away, then they aren't 'rights' anymore.
I mean, if I had to name someone a terrorist, I'd start with Rupert Murdoch, and then think about the CEO of Goldman Sachs (Blankenfein?)... Then there's that bank HSBC, that knowingly laundered money to terrorists and drug cartels.
If you really think about it, the 1% are the nastiest bunch of terrorists around, but I'll bet you the entire planet (which the 1% own), that these terrorists never, ever, ever get their names on any terrorist list.
So, what's a terrorist then? Someone, I guess... who represents a threat to the real terrorists running the world.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This is the real problem. We have no knowledge of who and what are on these lists, nor do we have any way of obtaining that knowledge. Every single person on them could be someone who trained in Pakistan with known terrorists or every single one of them could be regular people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant surveillance (which is what a "watch" list is, if you didn't gather by the name). We don't know, we can't know. The system is entirely and completely opaque to anyone outside it (and probably the vast majority of those tasked with updating it).
This is the most blatant disregard for constitutionally protected rights I've ever seen. I'll make sure I carry copies of "Catcher In He Rye" and "Anarchists Cookbook" wherever I travel. I'm surprised that this has been allowed to continue but it's utter nonsense and just the first fucking page of the document shows how fucked we are with all these shields representing stakeholders into the system. I especially like the part where one person in the White House can immediately include a group or individual on the terrorist watch list as they see fit. Have any political enemies? They're on the list.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Great.
From the article: 'As the rulebook notes, “watchlisting is not an exact science.”'
'science'?
Why do they hate America so much?
has putin been designated a terrorist yet?
You're on the list.
Nothing to see here.
Just another Republican claiming to be a Libertarian/Independent.
Too bad we can't post photos here on Slashdot.
This one states the message perfectly
Its okay to say someone is a "suspected terrorist" with no hard evidence in the same way the police can suspect you of murder even though they can't really prove it yet. Suspicion doesn't mean you get hit with hellfire missiles from a drone of course. That should require proof especially if they're americans.
That said, if you're walking around in a war zone talking to terrorists... I wouldn't blame the pentagon for lighting you up at a certain point. If you're going to go to those places, at least tell someone first so you don't get people's imaginations running wild.
We have to keep in mind this is war. If you went to Nazi Germany and started hanging around with Nazi leaders and military personnel I'm not going to feel bad if you got killed one afternoon by a B-17 carpet bombing the area. Its war.
Kindly don't associate with the enemy until hostilities have concluded or at least signal to both sides that you're a non-combatant and those that care will try to avoid taking you in the cross fire. Short of that... via con dios.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
McCarthy was not spying on all Americans, tapping all their phones, reading all their mail, groping them at the airport, sifting through their medical records (after forcing those records to be electronic and part of a national system) and so on.
Furthermore, McCarthy was onto a real problem before he went way overboard (I hate being in a position that looks like I am defending him, which I am NOT). There actually were a few commies in the government (as we learned decades later after the collapse of the soviet union and the opening of the archives) and there actually were a few commies in Hollywood having secret meetings (though they were more like social gatherings and the form of communism was more of an innocent idealism about "some other way" borne from the great depression). There also really were spies in the US transferring military (particularly nuclear) tech to the Soviet Union, which really was an actual national security matter. A drunken, bloated, publicity-hungry man with no sense of self-restraint and common sense was not the best person to dig into these issues.
In the current situation, 99% of the population is easily identifiable as being NO threat at all... the people trying to harm us are all Muslim extremists and the vast majority are from outside the US. Oh, and SOMEBODY always injects Tim McVeigh in here as a "domestic terrorism" counter-point - it's not. He was a vile criminal who attacked a specific Federal Building associated with the Waco raid, NOT a terrorist randomly attacking civilians.... very bad and deadly, BUT a very different matter requiring a response not connected to the "war on terror" (lumping McVeigh in with Muslim extremists is precisely the sort of thing that wrongly enables the feds to pretend their universal spying is necessary). If the goal is to stop terror attacks (rather than eliminate all crime, which is an impossible goal) there's simply no reason to spy on any American atheist, Jew, Christian, Buddist, Hindu, Seikh, etc and very little reason to give even a second look at any Muslim who's not forcing his wife and daughters into personal body tents, not trying to slice-and-sice his daughter's "naughty bits", not trying to send his daughters "home" to the middle-east for arranged marriages, and not trying to cut-off the hand of a guy at the local mosque (as happened in Philly recently)... in other words: there's even a difference between "moderate" Muslims and the crazy evil bloodthirsty whackjob Muslims who we need to be spying on intensely. Groping little children of non-muslims, and elderly nuns at the airport is NOT security - it's "security theater". Snooping on a bunch of young guys who play Halo because your phone taps caprtured the word "explode" is just plain idiotic.
We currently have, in Barack Millhouse Hussein McCarthy a man who is completely out of control. His political opponents have found themselves being probed by the IRS, the ATF, the FBI, and the EPA, while he has declared that he has the right to single-handedly re-write the clear text of laws and choose to not enforce laws he does not like. He has taken programs originally designed to snoop on people outside the US (normal spying activity done by all nations) but expanded post-9-11 to also snoop on people within the US wo were in contact with outsiders who were possible threats (Constitutionally-dubious, but an understandable temporary reaction to thousands of dead bodies) and transformed it into a permanent program of spying on EVERYBODY at all times. When you unite universal comprehensive spying with using government agencies to hassle political opponents and a disregard for any inconvenient law you have totalitarianism. If people were looking at this clearly, they would be FREAKING OUT right now (Imagine if a "President Cheney" was doing it and the people in the cross-hairs were progressives...) but since Obama is supported by all but one of the news media outlets, most Amercians are being spoonfed a supportive view of some of this and not told about the r
I am constantly terrorized by the united states government.
Every time I fly back from a foreign country I live in constant fear of US customs taking my shit or screwing with me because they are inherently unpleasant (true in most cases) and by construction can get away with whatever abuse they feel like dishing out.
Every time I fly domestically I live in constant fear of encountering that one pervy TSA agent who landed his dream job and is intent on exploitin. I fear what it says about a society willing to tolerate such inhuman treatment.
I fear what I post online is being collected, analyzed and used to pass judgment upon all with no judge or jury. I know a couple of nice middle aged ladies who .. umm.. have some very extreme political views and who get fucked with every time they fly..as if there were five S's permanently tattooed onto their foreheads.. yet you would never know otherwise..no police records, never hurt anyone, never would but they obviously have been shit listed for something...like their flaky comments sent in private email or facebook messaging.
I fear police running amok confiscating shit and generally acting like thugs because they operate in an environment which reinforces covering for bad behavior of their peers.
I fear a legal system that is by far world leader in incarceration beyond the most backwards and dictatorial regimes where prosecutors are rewarded for seeking convictions above truth and potential sentences so whacked plea deals have effectively become analogues of forced confessions. The only thing worse than commision of crime is blemish on the prosecutors record if found innocent.
I fear the rise of police/intelligence/military industrial complex seeing profit in conflict and monies wasted on "terrorism" by legions of Jack Bauer wannabees while objectively useful social programs statistically standing a non-zero chance of benefiting society go unfunded.
I fear being sued for some nonsensical reason and being forced to spend countless thousands of dollars and waste countless hours to defend myself by a system designed by lawyers to benefit lawyers.
I fear the erosion of rights by constant parody of highly skilled wordsmiths, third party doctrine extremism, dossier building without cause, legal environments making everyone guilty of something by default(CFAA,DMCA), objectively illegal behavior (Wholesale NSA metadata collection) not only not being punished or investigated but continued.
I fear what it says about this country when high crimes against humanity such as knowingly propagating WMD lies as pretext to start wars costing lives of hundreds of thousands is allowed to stand with no punishment or culpability of any kind. It is hard not to find oneself agreeing with the conspiracy nuts when they say the US government funds Al Qaeda because it is factually true. While perhaps not intentional so much of the modernity/terrorism problems are a direct result of decades of shit headed morally bankrupt policies.
You have been propagandized... you are the exact proof that the manipulation tactics work.
1. Thad Cochran's opponent had NOTHING to do with the KKK. Old Thad paid for lots of extremely vile and dishonest campaign ads on radio and flyers sprinkled in "black neighborhoods" to paint his TEA Party opponent as a racist PRECISELY to get your reaction and therefore motivate black Democrats to run to the polls and vote against the guy. Thad, being the real racist, did not even care that he was enticing many blacks to commit a crime on his behalf (voting twice in the primaries - once on the Dem ballot and then later on the GOP runoff ballot) and you can BET Thad won't be there to bail any of them out if jail time results...
2. "Fascist" TEA Party?!?!?!? Either you have never read the Constitution (TEA Partiers are fixated on it and want government put back into the box our founder created) or you have no idea what Fascism is. Fascism, FYI was the brain-child of Benito Mussolini, the famous Socialist dictator of Italy - hardly the sort of person and agenda TEA people like...
Congrats, you're the perfect Obama voter.... Obama said "Hope and Change" and promised to stop the rise of the oceans and you'll blindly follow him into hell even after you discover that a totalitarian hell is precisely where he is leading you (because he has you convinced that anybody else would be worse...). Remember: EVERY structure and policy and precedent Obama puts in place is available for every future President to use as he or she chooses.... Take off your knee pads for a moment and imagine Sarah Palin with all those same powers and then ask yourself if you still like this stuff.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for!" - Barack Obama.
I'd bet you are one of the few people in America who thinks he understands that quote and that it makes sense...
wow
Thats interesting AC but recall the FBI infiltration program called Patcon (Patriot Conspiracy) around 1991? :)
The laws, funding, interest was always ready. This new more simple legal listing is just a new next step to gather more people onto new and existing databases.
Patriot Games
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a...
If you want to go back further you had Project MINARET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
i.e. "watch lists" of American citizens around 1967 and 1973.
No judicial oversight, no warrants for interception and even got some UK help too
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The person you heap your hatred upon (Rupert Murdoch) is the ONLY media person opposing Obama and his massive overreach ... you seem very suspicious to me. Obama keeps whining and complaining that there's this ONE media outlet that disagrees with him, and YOU decare that the owner of that channel is a "Terrorist"....
Have you ever heard of the word "Irony"? I suggest you look it up.
Reasonable Suspicion is a CLEARLY defined legal doctrine. It even has a thorough wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Terrorist: No right to a speedy trial, no right to habeus corpus, No constitutional rights at all. Actually it's the Cold War equivalent of hauling people from their homes in the middle of the night... except that once you affix that label to them, you can operate in broad daylight.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
These days, you don't even have to be a dirty commie, or Chinese, or both, to be Anti-American; the Commander-in-Chief hisself is one
I can't help but wonder if Obama's own dossier is to go through the same expanded terrorist watchlist system would Obama be labeled as one of the terrorists?
Especially when neither "concrete facts" nor "irrefutable evidence" is required
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Aside from doing anything illegal, hurting anyone, etc. Seems that if enough of us buy the Get On The Terrorist List for Dummies then the problem sort of solves itself by making the list useless.
Makes the Patriot Act seem kind of quaint, no?
So now we're going to tar and feather the current President over this, right? Since he's far worse?
What's that, no? Just vaguely complain?
The word for this is witch hunt. A simple correlation is enough.
Just as merely being unusual marked a person as a witch when a plague broke out, posting unusual comments in social media, right before or after a terrorist incident, now marks you as a terrorist.
Download PDF here: http://s3.documentcloud.org/do...
~comfortably numb~
Come and get me fuckers.
On the page 48 of this document
EXAMPLES OF TERRORISM AND/OR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
3.18.1 destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities ..... ... ...
3.18.13 damaging a protected computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or that is used exclusively by a financial institution or the United States Government
3.18.18 damage to Government property
3.18.19 destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems
Well, AFAIC under these definitions the IRS are terrorists.
3.18.29 the use of weapons of mass destruction
3.18.34 harboring TERRORISTS
3.18.35 providing material support to TERRORISTS
3.18.36 providing material support to terrorist organizations
3.18.37 financing TERRORISM
3.18.38 receiving military-type training from a FTO
3.18.39 torture
3.18.40 developing, transfering, possessing, or threatening to use atomic weapons
3.18.46 manufacturing, distributing, or possessing controlled substances intending to provide anything of pecuniary value to a FTO, member, or group
Under these definition USA government is a terrorist organization.
You can't handle the truth.
Your said: "Oh, shut up about the Barak Hussein McCarthy bull. You sound perfectly reasonable until you pin all the blame on him. This shit started a while ago, and is growing. It won't go away when Obama is out of office. It didn't start with him, and it won't END with him. He's just a pawn.... A complicent pawn, a GUILTY pawn, but keep your blatant stupid racist bullshit to yourself. "
Where did the previous poster mention RACE????????
Oh, that's right, the last defense of the coward (and the first of Obama) is to call any critic a racist
While we're at it, please list all the incidents in the so-called "rash of White Conservative Christian types shooting up malls lately". Or are you just a person who hates white people, hates Christians, or both and is used to making stuff up as a debate tactic?
while the history of American politicians doing temporary bits unsavory spying or supression goes all the way back to John Adams' "Alien & Sedition Act", most have been limited and truly were aimed at something a president believed was a true threat (Adams, one of the founders and a prolific writer who was concerned about the rights and privacy of the individual was trying to keep French agitators from dragging the fledgling America into a foreign war). This current mess is a culmination of the actions of two Presidents of opposite parties who pretend to dislike eachother but who have both completely disregarded the rights of the people in favor of their goals of a super-surveillance state, aided by a congress with many members getting campaign cash from vendors who sell the equipment the surveillance state needs.
In the past, a President of one party taking over from a guy from the other party would have eliminated such policies (often to satisfy some portion of his supporters, but sometimes because he thought them ineffective or just plain wrong) and then gone on to make his own new errors [grin]. The current POTUS, however, seems to have warmly embraced the things he loudly condemned while campaigning and then built his empire of spying on top of it. This is BAD, and I personally do not care WHO is doing it; it was bad enough when Bush did it and it's worse now under Obama NOT because he is a Democrat, NOT because he is black, NOT because "he is from Kenya" (or any other foil hat garbage), but because it is MORE bad stuff heaped on top of a mountain of stuff he too previously agreed was really BAD. If McCarthyism had been immediately followed by a Democrat who doubled-down on McCarthy and added more people to the secret lists and more actions to the lists of suspicious activity, THAT would a mini version of the current situation. That did not happen though because the opponents of McCarthy were genuinely oppposed to his actions, not just pretending to dislike them until thay could get in power and take control of the process.
We should be worried about these policies, especially since many of the people who execute them at the lower levels will find something where none may exist. Some time after 9/11, I ended up on a no-fly list because I had the same name as someone in the IRA. I was denied a boarding pass three times. Although, after checking they did let me board. This happened to lots of people, including infants and members of Congress. The info came from a computer so it had to be true. The widespread nature of these false positives helped bring the idiocy to the media's attention, including "60 Minutes", and things ultimately got fixed. Wonder how many people will get messed over this time around? Being denied a flight is nothing compared to what can happen when one is accused of something serious.
The only way to end the police state is to flush all serving politicians.
Re-elect no one. Ever.
Terrorism seems to be the new white card for power abuse.
I wonder how tourists would feel about visiting the US now when they can easily be labelled as a terrorist for no reasons at all.
Thoughts of a free man:
"Execuitive branch"?
State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Defense, Health and Human Services, ...Agricultural terrorist? Actually that makes sense with all the amfo they have. They probably have more of it than some states have in TNT equivalent nuclear arms.
Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security
On a completely unrelated note, farmers need drones, don't they? Big ones, for dusting crops, herding cattle and what not.
All rites reversed 2010
Terrorist kind of implies unlawful hurting of others, guns, explosives or Muslim extremist venting well north of offensive.
Pity that thugs, robbers and criminals and meth dealers or weed smokers - well that seems OK.
Then you have people gone bad, not going to church, hitting hard liquor - or downloading, then trailer trash.
But now we have leakers, Journalists, or serial troublemakers (cause embarrassment) being wrongly labeled.
Some say mentally unstable, given certain shootings, should be on the list. But no - they have rights.
Then you have Texans with concealed weapons, itching to preserve things - 100% safe.
English is a beautiful language. Lets keep the list for genuine terrorists, and not any old 'I don't like' you -suspicion labeling.
Now is it any or all of these categories?
Perhaps we could "upgrade" Bush and Cheney's status and test the new system out.
Sure, lets throw in O'Bomber and Billary too just for kicks...
'Fuck the wheat; I want the chaff.'
This is about control of your average citizen. If they are watching everything we say and do, they will know the instant one of us says something they consider a "threat". And just what is it that they consider a "threat", anyway? Blowing up a building? Nope.
It's thoughts and ideas that they consider a threat. Thoughts and ideas that might, for example, lead to the people realizing that they no longer "need" government so much anymore, now that were are so hyper-connected. Eventually more and more of us will realize we can do thing more efficiently ourselves, and render many of the government functions superannuated.
Yes, my friends. The real "threat" is that we may render government irrelevant by way of creating alternative infrastructures.
Once they catch wind something like that is budding, mark my words they will come along and nip it in the bud. By whatever means they choose.
I say all this at risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist. I hope I am wrong on all of this, but I am just trying to understand everything that is going on now. You have to ask yourselves what is the real plan since there is not enough "terrorism" to justify these enormous efforts and assaults to our basic freedom, liberty, and privacy.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. BIDEN FOR 2016!
when everyone is on the list.
The probable good news is that, given the incredible computing power at play, this should not take a very long time, since the reasonable suspicion criterion make it easy to add names.
Governments(from Roman Empire till now) have killed more people on this planet than those who killed in the name of religion. Sorry, but governments don't work it's like giving a retarded chimp a loaded gun. Until people get rid of their selfish ways we will never truly be ready to govern. Look at those who converted to Islam for the purpose of using it as an excuse or license to commit murder and it's the same way how politicians dance around our common laws and constitution. Torah, Bible, Quran, Common Laws are not the problem it's the people who use these as tools to manipulate and oppress. But as usual, today, people are to busy fighting about skin color, women's bodies(abortion), your religion, etc... to do something about our governments.
"They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation...."
So Rush Limbo has been declared a terrorist. Revealing the ending of "Million Dollar Baby" on the air surely damaged the value of Warner Brothers' intellectual property and attempted to influence lawmakers' actions re: euthanasia legislation.
And even if such actions don't rise to the level of terrorism within the cited guidelines, surely Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly would qualify.
Apparently you didn't notice that congress was in on it this time....
"Hussein" is a Muslim name, and Islam is s system of belief, NOT a race. In fact, Muslims have repeatedly made this point in interviews post 9-11 where they have argued that it was wrong to pay any extra attention to middle-easterners in airport screening BECAUSE "Muslims are of every race". Nobody is genetically Muslim and unable to choose to "be Muslim". Any person who clings to that evil belief system does so by choice and anybody else is free to presume what they will about how vile and/or dangerous the person is.
And I note that you were able to cite no evidence of a "rash of White Conservative Christian types shooting up malls lately". The best you could apparently manage was a standard husband-and-wife criminal pair that died committing a rather typical violent crime not in any way tied to their being white, being conservative, or being Christian. There is no evidence whatsoever that the pair in question were conservatives or Christians (and their actions pretty much establish that they were NOT). Muslim terrorists are labelled that precisely because they commit their evil acts in the name of their perverted quasi-religion (usually shouting Allahu Ackbar over and over like mindless twits) .... the couple that shot up the store were not yelling "Praise JESUS!" or "The Pope Rules!" or "Milton Freidman was right!" or "Praise be to Reagan!" or "Ayn Rand was right!" or anything like that. Did they only attack non-whites? Nope. The fact that they were both white was completely incidental as were the colors of their apparently random victims.
Let me guess.... you are Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer. You seem to have an irrational hatred of white people, conservative Americans, and/or Christians. Instead of opposing anybody not like you, you should probably stop and think about why Islam is such a primitive backward ideology that has produced no significant advancements in 1300 years and whose men are so bad at self-control that they need to keep their women in Burkahs lest an exposed elbow lead to a frenzy. Contrary to pro-Muslim propaganda, the number zero is NOT a concept Islam created (it came from the Hindu in India), nor are any of the early advancements in geometry or engineering (which happened in Eqypt under the Pharohs and their indiginous religion long before Islam existed). Almost all the money in the Arab world came from oil, which was only found and pumped and sold after the British found it and taught the Arabs about it. Without all that money from oil (drilled, pumped, refined, sold, and transported using technology provided by Christians and Jews and atheists) the middle east (other than Israel) would still be a massive desert sparsely populated with nomads and their camels.
orginial source materials.
You said:"Mussolini was not a socialist"
That's not correct. He was a card-carrying member of the socialist party in Italy and was actually one of its leaders
You then added: "neither were the Nazis"
Um... this is toooo easy. The official name of Hitler's political party was NOT "NAZI" (which is a sort-of short-hand version of the German pronunciation of the actual part name). The actual name of the party (in German) was: "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" and when spoken, the first part sounds like "NATZIonel" (which everybody shortened and used as "NAZI"). The NAME of that damned party blatantly identifies it as sociaist so that only an unducated person, or a dimwit, or an apologist could possibly miss it:
"National" in German translates to "National" in English
"sozialistische" in German translates to "Socialist" in English (this is one "inconvenient" word you leftists always refuse to acknowledge)
"Deutsche" in German translates to "German" in English
"Arbeiter" in German translates to "Worker" in English
"partei" in German translates to "Party" In English (this is the other "inconvenient" word you leftists always refuse to acknowledge)
"Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" == NAZI == "National Socialist German Worker Party" (WooHoo! "Workers of the World, Unite! Throw off your chains!" (and all that other "community organizer"/"Rabble rouser"/"Socialist organizer"/"Commie agitator" left-wing rhetoric)) There is simply no honest way to deny this well-documented historical fact; denying it is like believeing in a "flat earth". In all those old films of NAZIs marching in big parades, there are soldiers carrying banners supported by metal cross-pieces that say "NSDAP" (not "NAZI")
If you had studied these people, you would know that both Mussolini and Hitler were hardcore socialists who, along with their energetic supporters, thought their particular versions were enhanced or perfected socialism. Mussolini and Hitler simply saw the corporation as a convenient middle-man in socialism - rather than having government micromanage everything they had government micromanage corporations and let the corporations manage the details that the government did not want to be bothered with. (These governments retained the right to bypass the corporations and micromanage anything they chose as well as the right to replace anybody in the corporation with a government person at any time). The arguments between NAZIs, Fascists, and Communists were the arguments of intellectual brothers fighting over purity and the "rightness" of their particular flavors of socialism (incidentally, the actual name of the Communist "Soviet Union" was "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics"). Sometimes, the fights between brothers are the most-bitter fights.
"That's why the ACA is straight from the Heritage Foundation."
Nope. There was ONE working paper out of Heritage (a GOP-associated "think tank") that supported the idea of an insurance purchasing mandate (something Republican voters and most Republican politicians NEVER embraced) and you Obama apologists have been running with that ever since Kos or HuffPo spoon-fed you this fig leaf. This one REJECTED idea does NOT tie conservatives to "Obamacare", which was negotiated between Harry Reid, Nanacy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and lobbyists and insurance companies and drug companies behind closed AND LOCKED doors with all Republicans barred from the rooms and no C-SPAN cameras in sight (even though Obama was elected after repeatedly claiming on the campaign trail that ALL NEGOTIATIONS would happen around a big table LIVE ON C-SPAN for all Americans to watch. Had this campaign pledge been upheld, all the warts of Obamacare would have been exposed to scrutiny and better solutions could have been found and we would not have had to "pass the bill in order to find out what is in it". Also, that would have embarrassed the GOP into participating, and then they would have had "buy-in" and would not be interested in fixing it (if it would have even needed fixing).
The Obamacare mess is ENTIRELY on the backs of the Democrats who refused to negotiate at all on any element of Obamacare. The reason for some of the "bugs" in the program is purely because the House bill and Senate bill could never be properly unified because Scott Brown got elected to the Senate and this deprived Harry Reid of his fillibuster-proof super-majority which would have meant the GOP would have gotten SOME input. Rather than allowing that input, Harry and Nancy pulled a legislative trick and rammed-through an incomplete mess. Welcome to the land of hyper-arrogant one-party-rule...
Germany did that in 1933 but they weren't after 'terrorists'. God help you if you were a Jew, though.
I strongly suspect this Eric Holder fellow is a sniveling weenie.
He's prominently featured on a very long list of useless, fucked-up people.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
and according to the last Armed Services appropriations bill your govt can now detain "suspected terrorists" indefinitely, without being charged, without rights or redress....... Obama loves it when a plan comes together!