Terror Watch List Swells to More Than 755,000

rdavison writes "According to a USA Today story, the terror watch list has swollen to 755,000 with 200,000 people per year being added since 2004. Adding about 548 people daily every day of the year does not seem to lend itself to a manual process with careful deliberation given or double checking being done for each person added. It seems to suggests that data is being mined from somewhere to automatically add names to the list."

Re:Except that it worked?

[moosesocks]

Right. America's not communist. I don't think you could seriously make that argument, as we spent most of the 20th century defining communism as "any form of liberalism currently not embraced by America"

The Soviet sort of Communism is indeed on the decline. It might have been sound in theory, but it was quickly overrun by corruption (the real enemy) and the political systems evolved to counter that. You could also say that the sort "democracy" that we had in 1920 is also on the decline, and be perfectly correct in that assumption. It all depends upon how you mince your words.

China's playing it by the book. They're going through their capitalist phase (and making a killing off of it in the process). Whether or not they'll eventually close their doors and embrace "real" communism remains to be seen (although history seems to suggest this, as China's been an astonishingly introverted nation for pretty much all of recorded history up until now). If that does come to pass, it will (at least initially) be a 'very bad thing' for the rest of us, regardless of which economic religion you subscribe to.

Socialism, communism's less intimidating cousin, on the other hand, is far from dead, and has more or less been accepted in some form or another across the industrialized world (apart from the US, which has spent far too much effort fighting the reds to allow such a thing to happen). Although communism was never proven to be a successful economic system, socialist-capitalist policies (ie. nationalized healthcare) have proven to be extremely popular and successful in nations that have the economic resources to support them.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Stefanwulf]

A couple years ago an ad was run in the DC metro - it had a picture of a brick wall with a single fire alarm bell (like the kind that used to be in schools) on the left hand side, and the same wall on the right hand side, except now it was covered with alarm bells, all mounted at about 3" intervals.

Underneath it simply said "More security does not mean you are more secure."

I think it sums up our situation pretty effectively.

Because we wont cower anymore

[kcdoodle]

The biggest reason there have been no hijackings is that WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11.

Do you really think any hijacker would stand a chance on a plane anymore?

I know that I would rip the tray table off of the seat in front of me and use it as a weapon against any terrorist activity on a plane. Sure I would probably die, but doing nothing, I would probably die as anyway.

The bad guys know this. They know they cannot get control of the plane as long as one person is still alive. That is why there have been no hijackings, we would rather die fighting than cowering.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Khomar]

Except for the right of a woman to have an abortion. In other words, he wants more government regulation of what a person can do with their body and more restrictions on personal liberty.

It could be said that he would like to protect the individual liberties of the unborn, but that is beside the point. His position on abortion is that it should not be addressed at the federal level at all, but left to the states to decide.

Hmmm

[scubamage]

But wait, I thought the pubbies kept saying that they're only watching people who need to be watched, and are sticking to the law!? You mean the government is lying? I can't believe that! No way! I wish I knew why the heck people can't dig their heads out of the sand and realize what the hell is going on... do people just not realize how perilously close we are to living in the orwellian future forecast by 1984? Cameras are everywhere in the UK and soon in the US, unmanned spyplanes doing thousands of runs per day over our countries, arrests being made based on information garnered from satellites, every conversation is being monitored, people are being held without habeas corpus because the governments are creating black-bagging legal grey areas, fighting a war that can't possibly be won and using it as an attempt to unify and pacify your body-politic... its terrifying. Yet it seems like only a few people realize it. I just want my free frontal lobotomy so I don't have to care about it anymore.

I'll Play

[vague_ascetic]

See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".

I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:

• I.8 Reproductive Rights [lp.org]
• I.9 Sexuality and Gender [lp.org]
• IV.1 Immigration [lp.org]
• III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime [lp.org]

I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.

H.J.RES.46: [loc.gov] Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Constitutional Amendment - States that a person born to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any state solely by reason of U.S. birth.

Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.

H.R.193: [loc.gov] To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.

Make College Affordable Act of 2007 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers, their spouses, dependents, and grandchildren a tax deduction from gross income for certain higher education expenses and for interest on certain student loans. Includes as higher education expenses undergraduate tuition and fees and reasonable living expenses while attending an institution of higher education.

H.R.1056: [loc.gov] To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjusted for inflation after 2007) per student per year for the cost of attendance at any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized to provide elementary or secondary education, or both.
[loc.gov]
H.R.1057: To amend th

Re:I believe Schneier said

[jdjbuffalo]

I'd just like to point out that we already have a "child molester" list in most/all states in the US. Almost anyone convicted of a broadly defined "Sex Offense" is put on the list. This can be anything from peeing in the bushes and getting caught all the way up to molesting a child. In answer to your eventual question, "that's right, in many places they've equated peeing in the bushes with rape and molesting a child". While some lists do specify what the person was convicted of, many don't. Also, most of the restrictions that are put in place to "protect our children" are applied to everyone on the list. Furthermore, they've retroactively put people on the list that were already convicted and released long before these laws were put in place (Ex Post Facto rules in the constitution be damned). So, it wouldn't surprise me if we have a list for everything as you specified. Just one of many slippery slopes that we're rocketing down to the eventual destruction of our society thanks to the "Think of the Children" crowd. /Rant

Oh, That War on Terror

[SchmellsAngel]

I hope you didn't mean to imply that non-USA citizens cannot be convicted in US courts, because they can. Anyway, presumably government added the people on the http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holyland23oct23,1,1922726.story?coll=la-headlines-nation [latimes.com]Holy Land Foundation donor list to the Watch List. Seized the foundation assets and investigated the case for six years but something went wrong with the trial. No guilty verdict. Are the people who donated still worth watching? (And for six years they have been watched in newly allowed ways.) Is there any way to get off the Watch List?

Re:Except that it worked?

[downix]

Incorrect. Those 36 include plots that were not carried out, prevented by the pre-9/11 use of the FISA court and good old fashioned police work.