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.

9 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. McCarthyism v2.0 by amoeba1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Re:McCarthyism v2.0 by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Worse, really - even McCarthyism required some sort of evidence by way of associations, party memberships, and etc.

      In this case, you don't even get that.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:McCarthyism v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right out of the East German playbook. Suspect everyone & have all neighbors fink on everyone else to generate mind numbing paranoia.

    3. Re: McCarthyism v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of blacklists, I think we're quickly moving towards whitelists. By default you're a terrorist or a criminal until proven otherwise.

  2. Re:Slashdot Users by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Soon enough (if not already), they will have "reasonable suspicion" to add all Slashdot users to the list.

    Hmm, let's see:

    - technologically savvy? Check.

    - Interested in/knowledgeable about cryptography/biology/chemistry? Check.

    - Generally Libertarian (pro-individual-freedom) mentality? Big ol' check.

    - NOT large donors to political campaigns? Good chance of another check here.

    Sounds like yes, we as a group do indeed meet the Fascist, er Federal Government's definitions of "terrorist."

    Any attributes I failed to list, that makes our community a target for clandestine government agencies?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. Kind of terrifying by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Can I even fly any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meh. The joke's been around forever, except it's no joke:

    There was a inter-agency meeting where various federal agents discussed what makes a person getting off a plane suspicious. They came to a conclusion that:
    Anyone who gets off first, or near the front, is obviously rushing, and thus is suspicious.
    Anyone who gets off last, or near the back, is obviously being cautious, and thus is suspicious.
    And anyone who gets off in the middle is trying to lose themselves in the crowd, and thus is suspicious.

    Point is, if they want you on 'a list', they'll put you on the list, no matter what you do or don't do. /isn't that a 'police state'? //...I mean "I love Big Brother!"

  5. Re:Keep lowering the bar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 list will always be finite. Don't be ignorant. There will be people who will NEVER be on this list no matter what they do or say. However, we need to stop assuming the government does not have the ability to enslave (incarcerate) far more than you could ever imagine.

    I never imagined that the city of Boston could be turned into a Stazi police state in a matter of hours. It happened. Right under our eyes. With ten times the law enforcement resources we thought we had on hand.

    That capability can now be deployed to every major city across the US. Within hours.

    Don't wonder or assume where your tax dollars go. It's the armored troop carriers and drones staring you in the face that ALL law enforcement agencies suddenly NEED to do their job. Regardless of the threat yesterday or over the last decade, Bubba Joe Sheriff apparently can't do his job tomorrow without it, so it's automatically approved in the budget. Fuck you and your privacy. Stop bitching. You're "safe" now.

    Ahhh, can't you just smell the freedom in the air...

  6. How does the current POTUS fair ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 !