Slashdot Mirror
40% Of People On Terror Watch List Have No Terrorist Ties
Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) writes with the chilling, but not really surprising, news that the U.S. government is aware that many names in its terrorist suspect database are not linked to terrorism in any way. From the article: Nearly half of the people on the U.S. government's widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group, according to classified government documents obtained by The Intercept. Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government's Terrorist Screening Database — a watchlist of "known or suspected terrorists" that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments — more than 40 percent are described by the government as having "no recognized terrorist group affiliation." That category — 280,000 people — dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.
I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Then it means that 60% from this list have terrorist ties ? Good result.
No. No it's not. Not for any meaning of "good result".
40% known to be false, 60% not yet, 0% provable in a court of law. Good result indeed. This is why the government detain suspect forever and never go to trial.
I think it is over due that we put the state on the fascist watch list.
No, I suspect it's much lower.
They know that 40% have nothing to do with terrorism, and one suspects it's much higher than that.
Basically they're taking a scatter-shot approach, and don't need to justify it, and don't give a damn that they're impacting people's lives with bad information.
These guys would be just as happy to go with the "everyone is a terrorist until proven otherwise model", where the proven otherwise occurs when you're dead.
It makes it so much easier to be fascists when you don't need to justify your lists of people to watch out for.
They've already more or less admitted that they have absolutely no control with these lists, and that any agency, for any reason, without any actual evidence can add someone to the watch lists.
This allows them to be both a malicious cancer and incompetent morons without recourse.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If there are 280,000 people on the watch list that are there despite having no recognized ties to any terrorist groups.. why are they on the list at all?
So if they know that 40% don't have terrorist ties, perhaps they should clean up their list?
It means 60% on that list are suspected of having terrorist ties. It does not mean they really do have terrorist ties, and it does not mean the suspicion is reasonable. In other words, that 60% would need to be further categorised before it becomes a meaningful statistic.
The 40% on the other hand is already a meaningful statistic.
The Newspeak definition is easy.
Anyone fighting going against any US interests, first and foremost big corporate interests = terrorist
Anyone fighting that aligns itself with the US and gladly let strip mining emence once they win = freedom fighter
HTTP/1.1 400
I bet half of ar15.com is on that list.
My wife is probably on that list. She ordered two small pressure cookers via Amazon recently one for her and one for our daughter. But it was TWO. Automated add to terror list.
Meaningful enough for one to conclude that if the real numbers were out there, they'd be doing about as well as random chance (hey, they have a 50/50 chance of being right), and quite probably are doing FAR worse.
If they're admitting that 40% don't have any ties, you can probably assume that the number of people who don't belong on the list is much higher.
This is what happens when you have secret lists, and no evidentiary threshold to apply to put people on it.
Overall, I'm going to conclude these agencies are at least 40% incompetent.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
In which mathematical system is 40>60?
Best Slashdot Co
I do not think it is supposed to be particularly easy to join hamas, particularly for an American. You do not just look up "Terrorist" in the yellow pages and call 1-800-alQ-aeda.
The ability to join a known terrorist organization is limited to a few people based on genes, friendships, and geography.
The ability to hate the government and to build bombs is universal.
Ergo, most terrorists will most likely not have any affiliation is known terrorist organizations.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Terrorism doesn't have to be organized. Just look at Breivik!
Most of us (on /. anyway) realized right after 2001 that the "We're trying to catch terrorists!" excuse would be used to steamroll over the rights and protections of pretty much EVERYONE. The T E R R O R I S T boogeyman has become a goddamned golden license to do anything for the CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, etc.--all the way down to the local yokel sheriff who uses his new toys and tools to spy on his wife.
It was never about terrorism. It was about exploiting terrorism to create the police state they always wanted.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Isn't it funny how so many documents are "classified" despite having no real national security applications but instead are solely indicators of government incompetence and/or misconduct.
Realistically, how many people share the same name as a terrorist? I had a friend by the name of Chris Johnson who had been flagged. If one Chris Johnson is a bad guy...all the rest are not, and I bet that's a lot of Johnsons. What made it funny was that he had a top secret clearance but still got flagged at airports.
My wife is probably on that list. She ordered two small pressure cookers via Amazon recently one for her and one for our daughter. But it was TWO. Automated add to terror list.
You should see that this is a good thing overall. The quicker this list can be proven worthless in the eyes of everyone, the faster it will become a heated target within politics, ripe for attack. It's own absurdity will remove it's power to abuse.
I highly doubt it, given the government's abject terror of dubbing any right-wing group or action as "terrorist." Remember, terrorists are, by definition, brown people.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
This shouldn't surprise anyone. In these types of situations it is the innocent who are seen as the enemy, not actual criminals/terrorists.
Let's see who gets a FOIA request for their entry criteria and see what it takes to get into this DB. I've read of at least 2 stories (Army and FBI) where government sensitivity training is already classifying some conservatives or Christians as "extremist", somehow forgetting about the people with the black flag that have a stated goal of terminating all of us.
“It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”
—Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna
"...the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.”
—Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
> Meaningful enough for one to conclude that if the real numbers were out there, they'd be doing about as well as random chance (hey, they have a 50/50 chance of being right), and quite probably are doing FAR worse.
Lots of medical tests are worthwhile with a lot more than 50% false positives. The problem with this 40% statistic is that it falls well short of traditional thought that it's better to let 10 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent. If this were just a list that got you watched it would be one thing. But this has other more serious consequences.
that was setup by George Bush....
All that means is that the selection process has some small error rate. Lets say the list of all travellers is 200 million*. That's about a 1.4% error rate (false positives). Not bad.
Of course, its a bitch for those caught on the list for no good reason. Which is why some quality control measures need to be implemented to improve this number.
*Don't rely heavily on this number. I just pulled it out of my ass to illustrate error rates when selecting a small subset out of a large population.
Have gnu, will travel.
Let's face it.... a group of 20 people could do major damage to the U.S. If I had cells of 5 people in a few states.... I could cause wide spread chaos and fear. If they were watching 100 people, I'd think the list was excellent. If they were watching 500 people, I'd think the list was almost prudent. That they are watching 680,000 people? That list is USELESS. Needle in a haystack useless.
If there ARE plots to hurt Americans, we need much better, much TIGHTER scrutiny of specific individuals... A Terrorist Watch List, to be effective, should have the top 50 suspects, and their closest associates. 500 people at the most.
That list didn't catch the Boston Bomber..... even though Russia TOLD US he might be a problem. Needle in a haystack.... Forget the 40%. The sheer number of people on that list makes it useless. Lets face it, there are probably a few hundred people out of 300 million that really need watching.
I honestly doubt there are more than a handfull of people inside the US that have: actual terrorist desires, actual terrorist connections, an actual plan to hurt people, and enough fanaticism to overcome the fear of Gitmo or Death. There might be more with one or two of these, but look around you... if we're in so much danger, where's the actual DANGER? Since Sept. 11th, we've had ONE guy, the boston bomber... ok, and a bunch of right wing soverign citizen types.
Actually, I'm much more afraid of a crazy american trying to topple the government (all by himself, of course) than an actual terrorist.
No terrorist will fly under a name he used before, most certainly not his birth name.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
A successful terrorist doesn't necessarily need to join a club. Look at the villains our vast comic-book history: they're almost all scarier when they act alone and not as part of some terror franchise.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Sure, and there are objective criteria involved in those, and objective results.
This list boils down to some police officer, informant, agent, intercept, or disgruntled asshole said "I think he's a terrorist, and I have nothing to support that".
It then goes into the ever growing list of people whose lives will be fucked with for no good reason, and to justify these spy agencies and their lists full of terrible data.
You're damned right this has more serious consequences, which means it should also require some credible evidence, instead of any law enforcement officer anywhere being encouraged to add people to the list "just in case".
I see this list as nothing more than the scope creep of fascism, and will be defended by the fascists as a necessary tool. Accurate information is a necessary too. Garbage information is just a recipe for abuse.
Right now, either through laziness, incompetence, or spite, a huge amount of people can add pretty much anybody to this list. In fact, they're encouraged to.
And it sounds like there are no checks and balances, and no accountability.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I would have expected that well over 90% of people on the terror list have nothing to do with terrorism. So, this number is actually quite low, and if true, means that (1) the government is successful in identifying terrorists, and (2) there are really LOTS of terrorists on the planet, which is really worrying.
I strongly suspect that 40% are confirmed false positives. Then there is a large group that they don't know yet, but who are just innocent and mostly harmless.
After the Boston Marathon Bombing, the tea party were the first people blamed. The shooter of the judge and congresswomen in Arizona was also blamed on conservatives (even though it turned out the guy was a liberal.)
She should of of ordered High Explosives and Timing devices instead and she would of avoided getting on the list!
You're just going to have to unwad your panties on this one, you don't get to decide who the defense department targets since you are completely unqualified to do so
You're defending scumbags in a government that is known to be hostile towards civil liberties and the constitution (NSA, TSA, etc. come to mind). Why?
Also, I would rather not have these things at all, because denying people rights or abilities based on some secret list is disgusting and unconstitutional. Due process is necessary.
I've always assumed that if you are unlucky enough to be on a jet that has to make an emergency landing for any reason, you end up on a watchlist somewhere.
Tail light out? Watchlist.
Electrical fire due to a wiring short? Watchlist.
Drunk and disorderly passenger on the same flight? Watchlist.
...according to themselves:
http://www.securitronlinux.com...
http://www.techspot.com/news/5...
You gotta love how "scared" they are of us. They have NO clue.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Overall, I'm going to conclude these agencies are at least 40% incompetent.
That may be true generally, but unfortunately they appear to be 100% competent at at least one thing: cashing the blank check Congress has given them.
Well we know what to get them for Christmas then
Heres a marketing opportunity, ties with the logos of the FSF, GreenPeace PETA, Sierra Club, Pirate Bay, or even Charles Schwab (they do IRA's)
I'm surprised.
I hate to say it, and I know this will go against the common feeling here, but I think TFS misses the point. Misses by some distance, actually.
Timothy McVeigh wasn't, to my knowledge, associated with any recognized terrorists organizations. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been on a list of people the FBI is concerned about. Whether or not they are known to be a member of a known terrorist group isn't the important question. (Note also the difference between "we don't know which group they are affiliated with" vs "we know they aren't communicating with any group"). If someone is acting like a terrorist, such as buying explosives on the black market, the government should probably make a note of that fact, regardless of what groups they are associated with or not associated with.
The information in the report that is more concerning to me is that they have added 430,000 names to the "terrorist-related" database in the last four years. That sounds like far too many people. I was surprised the report said they REMOVED 50,000 names in those same four years. That's good news. I'm also concerned about the EFFECTS of being in this database. If there were that many people on the no-fly list, that would be troubling, but I don't think that's the case. If a listed person flies to the middle east and back and that triggers a notification to authorities so they can include that information in their larger understanding of what's going on, that's less troubling.
We should be asking "how is this list used?" and "what ARE the criteria to be put on this list?"
Those, I think, are more important questions than "how many act alone or in small groups, as opposed to recognized organizations?"
I know, that sounds like defining "is" or "sex with that woman" but...
TFA indicates that they have no "recognized terrorist group affiliation ties". So does that parse to
(1) American citizens who have no ties to a terrorist group
(2) no known ties to a terrorist group, but the NSA could have metadata that shows contact with one or multiple known members of those groups,
(3) ties to groups which we suspect may have terrorist motives/wings/connections but are not currently recognized as terrorist groups
(4) ties to or current or prior foreign citizenship from state which sponsor or harbor terror groups
Option (1) is what the article would suggest. Here's a similarly ambiguous statement, which is 100% truthful: "Of the 280,000 people on the list who have no recognized terrorist group affiliation ties, none are identified in the article as being Americans citizens." Of course, the infographic indicates that, of the 660,000 people on the watchlist, 3300 are American citizens (0.5%), but not that any of those 3300 are in the unaffiliated group. Which is why I suggest items (3) and (4), which (I'm guessing) make up the vast majority of those in the 40%.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
So you would rather that the list be made up of persons with known terrorism group allegiances, and that any and all supporting information also be cataloged in the same place so that the list is audit-ready to outline exactly who is a terrorist, why, and how we know that?
Yes. Yes, I actually would rather that the secret list our government uses to strip rights away from citizens to actually be targeted at the people that our government claims it is targeting rather than just random individuals.
What? You didn't realize how fucking stupid you sounded when you typed it out? Well then...
TFA says 40% have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” So the Unabomber would fall into this category, as would someone who had expressed a desire to set of a bomb, or someone who says "as a member of the blah blah group I am committed to terrorism" (if there is no recognised blah blah group).
Given that 99% of us are terrorists, I would say the terrorists have lost.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
My wife is probably on that list. She ordered two small pressure cookers via Amazon recently one for her and one for our daughter. But it was TWO. Automated add to terror list.
You should see that this is a good thing overall. The quicker this list can be proven worthless in the eyes of everyone, the faster it will become a heated target within politics, ripe for attack. It's own absurdity will remove it's power to abuse.
I somehow doubt that. In my experience absurdity is no obstacle for a policy; especially one driven by fear. As flawed at it is, if we get rid of the list terrorists will start downing planes left and right. You wouldn't want that, would you? Would you?!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There's no need to even postulate that they want to create a police state; it's simply the cheapest, easiest way to appear to be responding decisively to a threat. When it's cheaper and easier to ignore freedoms than protect them on the path to security, and security is the topic of the moment, what vote-hunting politician of any stripe is going to give a damn?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
There is a many to many mapping of those. (Should be many to one, but nothing is perfect.)
That is, my slashdot user name is one "name", so is my "real" name that people call me, which is not the full name on my birth certificate. So that's three names for one person.
Also, not all terrorist groups are in the middle east, or Muslim. Several are right here in the US, and Christian. (Or Jewish, not sure if any atheist groups are in the US).
Best Slashdot Co
They've already more or less admitted that they have absolutely no control with these lists, and that any agency, for any reason, without any actual evidence can add someone to the watch lists.
Let's think this through for a minute... So you would rather that the list be made up of persons with known terrorism group allegiances, and that any and all supporting information also be cataloged in the same place so that the list is audit-ready to outline exactly who is a terrorist, why, and how we know that? Yeah fucking right. The list itself would be a roadmap for how the US finds and tracks terrorists. You're just going to have to unwad your panties on this one, you don't get to decide who the defense department targets since you are completely unqualified to do so and frankly, don't know shit about mitigating the risk of terrorism.
Apparently, the people in charge are also completely unqualified. By your logic, we should simply sit back until they've fingered everyone as a potential terrorist. Then there won't be anyone left to complain.
Right, because every muslim is clearly part of the Muslim Brotherhood (a faction operating in Egypt and a few pockets of other middle east countries).
Sounds about right. Since Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to speak for all of the US I assume that every American agrees with them. I don't see why I should treat Muslims differently.
They've already more or less admitted that they have absolutely no control with these lists, and that any agency, for any reason, without any actual evidence can add someone to the watch lists.
Let's think this through for a minute... So you would rather that the list be made up of persons with known terrorism group allegiances, and that any and all supporting information also be cataloged in the same place so that the list is audit-ready to outline exactly who is a terrorist, why, and how we know that? Yeah fucking right. The list itself would be a roadmap for how the US finds and tracks terrorists. You're just going to have to unwad your panties on this one, you don't get to decide who the defense department targets since you are completely unqualified to do so and frankly, don't know shit about mitigating the risk of terrorism.
We don't need a list at all. We didn't need one before 9/11/2001 and we don't need one now. The CIA and whomever else were tracking the hijackers before they attacked. They just failed to stop them for whatever reason. Two of them were living with an FBI informant for crying out loud. We didn't need a list to know they were with Al Qaeda and where they lived in the country.
We don't need a list. And no speech about how we need Col. Jessup up on that wall will convince me otherwise.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Perhaps they simply put all Doe's and Smith's into the database? (yes, the ' is incorrect but makes more clear the does and Does :) )
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... so they can have terrorist suits to go with their terrorist ties.
-- Make America hate again!
The govt had a communist list full of people that the administration did not like.
The "terror list" is honestly nothing more than a shit list.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Just add a few more confirmed non terrorists and we habe a ratio of 50 : 50!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Where ties means that your credit card showed up when they ran a check of who bought stuff from a particular ebay merchant in the month of May 2003, and one of the other cards that came up in that same search was a stolen card that might have been used by terrorists to buy unknown stuff without being detected.
So 40% of the people on the list either have nothing to do with terrorism, or are independent terrorists, or are sufficiently sneaky that they don't know what group they belong to but not sneaky enough not to attract attention.
And 60% of the people are suspected of having ties to terrorist groups.
So anywhere between 0% and 100% of the people in either category could be terrorists.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
One more level down--that politician was elected by a population that is overwhelmingly white, elderly, doesn't travel much, gets their news from television, and has elevated children to the level of sacred cows.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Aka, 113 new names on that list!
No. It means the 60% of the list are suspected of having terrorist ties.
Sad thing is, this is less 'abuse of power' and more 'laziness'. A high false positive rate is an indication that they are not really bothering to confirm people or clean up the list over time, they are just throwing stuff in a bin and moving on.
Actually, pretending not to be a terrorist is a sure sign that you are. And not pretending, well,...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If you remember how low their standards are for marking someone as affiliated with a terrorist group, this 40% must be super-whitebread middle-Americans who have never met a foreigner.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Ah, no. It just means that for 40% they are absolutely sure they are innocent, for the others they have no clue. I.e. a random person off the street would be in the 60%.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
don't you talk about my sacred cow like that!
According to NSA's current spying policy, it's pretty clear that they see that world has two kinds of people in it. Those who have been found to be terrorists, and those who haven't been found to be terrorists yet.
One of the most revolutionary aspects of Western sense of justice has been presumption of innocence. Throughout the history, presumption of guilt was far more common in justice systems everywhere. That's why the most common way to question suspects was torture.
This is simply the security and justice apparatus degrading into it's more natural state due to lack of stringent oversight.
I am curious.
Do people in America really support this?
Are you aware of the path you are on?
Are you really ignorant of where this leads to?
Are you all in agreement?
(R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
There is also a difference in success rates to keep in mind.
A cheap medical test that flags 50% falsely for an illness (and sends them to the more expensive test to be cleared) but almost NEVER clears someone who is actually sick is much better than one that is as likely to clear you as flag you if you ARE sick.
This terrorist list? We have no idea how many terrorists slip through the net, though given the lack of daily bombings it's probably very very very few - simply because there are very very very few terrorists in the first place.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
You have to learn to be an optimist.
Why? Why is optimism so essential?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are at least 280,000 people who would think you're full of shit. This minimum number is confirmed in TFA.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
I can't be bothered to read the article but the blurb above just say that 40% have no known connection with terrorist groups - not that they aren't potential terrorists.
Timothy McVeigh didn't have connections with terrorist groups - but he was a terrorist.
Ted Kaczyski was yet another terrorist without terrorist connections.
After the Boston Marathon Bombing, the tea party were the first people blamed.
Bullshit.
http://theweek.com/article/index/243028/4-innocent-people-wrongly-accused-of-being-boston-marathon-bombing-suspects
None of those listed above were associated with the Tea Party. In fact, the Tea Party AFAICT was never mentioned specifically in news reports just right-wing extremist groups like neo Nazi's or the sovereign citizens movement. But aside from radical Islamic terrorists, who else in the United States resorts to bombings or shootings other than right wing nutjobs?
As far as Jared Lee Loughner, political affliation, it's completely irrelevant since the guy is clearly crazy and diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner.
"Are you a terrorist?"
"Me? NO!"
"That's exactly what a terrorist would say..."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How long 'til the Boomer finally croak?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Obviously there are a few people affiliated with mid eastern mad bombers and the like. There are also revolutionaries among us without such affiliations. Then there are just plain bitter people who strive to bring down the nation. Often behaviors can be quite similar among these people. For example if I keep hammering at "release the secret files concerning the JFK murder" it may be because I am a patriot who wants to know the truth. It may be because I wish to bash and weaken America due to my own personality quirks or it just could be that I think that somehow I am aiding the mad bomber nuts. The catch is that without investigation and getting deep into a persons life just how can a government know who is trying to bring it down? Personally I see people that deny climate change as committing acts of treason or crimes against humanity. I also see those that simply want to maintain the status quo at all costs as criminals. And i really do think we need to have every single document concerning the JFK , BFK and MLK murders displayed before the public. And i am beyond words that people in the Bush administration are not on trial as war criminals over the use of torture. We only have the right to ask the name and rank and serial number of a captured enemy and we do not even have the right to ask them that over and over again. We set those rules and we betrayed ourselves by failing to follow them.
So, do you have known ties to terrorists? If not, you must be a terrorist too, right?
So you agree that we should put you on the list because you haven't been 100% excluded as a suspect?
You may want to live in that stupid world, but the rest of us don't.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1% of 680,000 is still 6,800. You really think even that many citizens could be proved to be terrorists?!
I suspect even 1% is at least an order of magnitude too high (assuming the number of bona-fide terrorists on the list is non-zero, which it might not be).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Somewhere somehow someone slowly turned travel to be a privilege, which the Executive can withdraw at a whim. It ought to be explicitly declared a right, which only the Judiciary can suspend — after a trial.
And it is not just airtravel — under Obama, Bush-created TSA are expanding their "jurisdiction" over all other mass transit, nor can you drive a personal car without the government's permission (driver's license). And having somebody else drive you without a government's permission is troublesome too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
http://www.infowars.com/will-o...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ob...
The media used the term "anti-gov" types, patriots, and extreme right wingers. I didn't see any reference to neo-nazis. The media have gone out of it's way to link those terms with the tea party and you damn well that was the implication.
In any case, it turned out the right-wing "extremest" had nothing to do with the attack.
Also, show me the evidence of all the right wing nutjobs bombings and shootings and I can show you that the progressive nutjobs are just as bad
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
Additionally, review the political beliefs of the person behind the Washington Navy Yard shooting and
Ted Kaczynski
Long damn time - the tail end of the "greatest generation" is till hanging on. The Boomers have just started to drain the treasury, and won't die off until that has been completed.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9/11 was not committed by conservative people and neither was the 93 WTC.
Fighting against government oppressors is not a strictly conservative viewpoint.
You're misunderstand the point. This is simple logic.
A terrorist can have an affiliation with a group, or act independently.
So, a person can be in three states:
A: not a terrorist,
B: a terrorist without group affiliation
C: a terrorist with an affiliation.
The list contains 60% of the people in group C. 40% are either A or B. All of the ones that are B still fit the criteria for the watch list, so those are valid. There isn't enough info to tell us if the distribution is 60% C, 40% B, and 0% A (which would be perfect), or if there is some other mixture where people in group A are listed but shouldn't be, so we don't know how inaccurate the watch list is.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Fuck Homeland security All of them
That assumes that the general probability of any random person has a 50% chance of having ties to a terrorist (I leave it to the reader to figure out what in the hell that actually means). In reality depending on how having ties to a terrorist is defined the list is either phenomenally accurate (nice tight definition where 80% of the general population meets the definition).
Time to offend someone
Using your groups the actual numbers would be more like .00001% of the people on the list are in group C, .00002% of the people on the list are in group B, and the vast majority 99.99997 fall into group A (these number are at least within a couple of orders of magnitude of the actuals). This isn't a list of terrorists, but people with ties to terrorism with what ever criteria the rather incompetent government uses for defining ties to terrorists. I would be willing to bet it assumes 2 degrees of separation at least so you know someone who knows someone type of thing means you have ties to terrorism.
Time to offend someone
AFTER 2001? I think I remember thinking about that ON 9/11.
You're preaching to the converted on the shitty implementation of this list. I don't support or defend it.
I just don't like people drawing a conclusion from a statement that isn't consistent with it.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
You are missing D, not a terrorist with a "tie" (whatever tie means) to a terrorist organization.
they could quite easily be in 60% of the list you are referring to. if C was the only option then they should be arrested immediately, since they clearly a terrorist.
Yes, and self sacrificing people, like the Tsarnaev's, rekindled the antiterrorist enthusiasm - when it dwindled amongst the people, and they started saying there are no terrorists, but we're tired of all this government snooping - after all, what would the country be like without 1984?
I pretend being a terrorist, I got the skills too, I only lack a good motive, but they are working on it. For now I bitch about all kinds of stuff without taking it seriously enough to kill somebody over it. So that's what I fear most, how much they have to hurt me to make me lose it and go ape shit? I would probably break some dishes then, but not hurt anybody, as much as I could help it. Breaking a dish is always such a satisfaction, and release of pent up energy. Try not to break an expensive antique vase though, because that's not really replaceable.
Yeah, the rabbit hole is deep and my drilling rig is too short to get the job done, sigh :(
My answer is "maybe, wink wink.."
The treasury has money in it? Since when?
I have been exonerated from being a true terrorist, but I make an excellent practice dummy. It's kinda like you have dangerous explosives and safe explosives, and you wanna practice on the safe explosives first, but you still have to be careful not to blow yourself up, or at least lose a finger in the process. So that's as far as an exoneration process is able to exonerate, you never really go totally free, there is always a "maybe", "ya never know for sure," and I don't envy these folx werking with terrorist suspects, because people are not predictable. Like they are trying to predict when I will masturbate next, and I purposely try to make it unpredictable for them. That's the first lesson for an antiterrorist employee: people are unpredictable, even if it's your job to predict them.
If you can get away with making it more negative, there's more to drain!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The shooter of the judge and congresswomen in Arizona was also blamed on conservatives (even though it turned out the guy was a liberal.)
One person seems to have described him as radically liberal, another as neutral, but he was registered Independent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Views_on_politics
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
We need to sue the guys who invented negative numbers, it's all their fault. Or their descendants and heirs.
Timothy McVeigh wasn't, to my knowledge, associated with any recognized terrorists organizations. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been on a list of people the FBI is concerned about.
Yup, if only they had put him on a no-fly list there is no way he could have driven a truck under the federal building.
Keeping an eye on people you believe to be terrorists makes sense to me. If there is actual evidence then arresting them makes even more sense. The only reason to put them on a no-fly list would be if you are trying to arrest them, and just want to ensure they don't blow up a plane before you get a chance to do so.
If you don't have enough evidence to arrest somebody, how do you justify putting them on the list in the first place? That is right up there with seizing and selling off assets before you even get a conviction.
> If you don't have enough evidence to arrest somebody, how do you justify putting them on the [no fly] list in the first place?
That's a question I'd like answered. I did find out that about 280 people on the list are US residents or citizens, so that gives us some sense of the level of threat required. Many more people have the same name as someone on the list, and therefore have to go through extra hassle. The number of people on the no fly list doubled in 2012.
> That is right up there with seizing and selling off assets before you even get a conviction
If there is actual evidence then arresting them makes even more sense. The only reason to put them on a no-fly list would be if you are trying to arrest them, and just want to ensure they don't blow up a plane before you get a chance to do so.
Doing a few minutes of research, I learned that the no fly list doesn't actually stop them from flying. It's a list of people not allowed to fly INTO the US, or out of the US. It doesn't apply to domestic flights. I would say that a nation has the right to deny entry for any reason whatsoever. I don't have to justify why I don't invite someone into my house, and the US doesn't have to justify why we don't invite a certain person into the country. Not letting people leave is a little different. However, it seems that most often no-fly people are indeed arrested if they try to leave the country, so apparently there is cause for arrest - law enforcement would have preferred to wait longer before arresting them.
Based on what I've learned this morning, it seems the process needs improvement, particularly in regard to false positives, but there probably are about 280 people who really SHOULD be on that list. The other list, the terrorism watch list, is much, much larger.
There is an interesting philosophical question when it comes to US citizens.
> if there is enough evidence to arrest them I'm sure the foreign government will do so.
Suppose Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, had escaped to Iran. Should we not declare that we don't want him on any US-bound airliners? I know I don't want a known terrorist on the same plane _I_ am on. Would Iran arrest him for us? Maybe.
We do know that at least SOME of the people on the no fly lists HAVE been arrested for terrorism related offenses. They did their time and got out, or one juror felt there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There might still be enough evidence to say we don't want them flying on on an airliner, without even going through US security first.
Again, the other list, the terrorism watch list, is much more concerning to me, especially because of the number of people on it.
My point wasn't that checking passenger lists for known terrorists isn't a good idea.
My point was that simply excluding people from flying and not doing more doesn't make sense. You don't need a special no-fly list for Richard Reid. You need a known fugitive terrorists list that is an arrest-on-sight list for him, and of course that also includes not letting him board a plane, bus, train, boat, etc.