Maryland Police Put Activists' Names On Terror List 426
aaandre writes with word of a Washington Post story which begins:
"The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday. The police also entered the activists' names into the federal Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area database, which tracks suspected terrorists. One well-known antiwar activist from Baltimore, Max Obuszewski, was singled out in the intelligence logs released by the ACLU, which described a 'primary crime' of 'terrorism-anti-government' and a 'secondary crime' of 'terrorism-anti-war protesters.'"
According to the article, "Both [former state police superintendent Thomas] Hutchins and [Maryland Police Superintendent Terrence] Sheridan said the activists' names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries." Reader kcurtis adds "The State Police say they are purging the data, but this is one more example (on top of yesterday's news that datamining for terrorists is not feasible due to false positives) of just how badly the use of these lists can be abused."
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't new to America by any means. The only new part about it is that we learn about it quicker.
In the 1950's, J Edgar Hoover wanted to arrest over suspected of being disloyal. [nytimes.com]
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus (later to be found that it was done unconstitutionally) and arrested 1000's of newspaper writers, editors, political dissidents and even 2 congressmen.
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:5, Informative)
--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Re:Non-violent? (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the ones that were actually government agents, paid to disrupt lawful protest? We did it in the sixties and seventies with COINTELPRO, [wikipedia.org] why would anyone think we're not doing it now?
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:2, Informative)
Don't forget the Palmer Raids [wikipedia.org] and other actions during the first Red Scare, responsible for utterly destroying the socialist movement in the United States.
Re:Check yourself, (Score:5, Informative)
Paranoid much?
CLETS is just another state law enforcement messaging system - not a single database. I'm pretty sure every state has one and they talk to each other via NLETS (National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System). Nothing new. NLETS itself has been around in various forms since the 60s and several of the state systems originated before that.
I've worked on these in several states. They let authorized agencies run queries to *specific* databases (DMV, Sex Offender lists, Wants/Warrants, Stolen Vehicles, Criminal History Records, etc.). Usually each one of these is run by a different agency which is connected to the state system. Most of the traffic I've seen over the years is Drivers License and Vehicle Registration inquiries (two completely separate inquiries) resulting from someone getting pulled over.
A cop being able to "write anything about you" means that whatever state/local agency is running the system that data gets put in isn't properly auditing their system. Something that actually pisses off the Feds.
In the states I've worked in, a person's access is limited based on their role and what they've been certified for. Your average cop wouldn't be able to enter or modify data, just query it, and even there they normally wouldn't be able to query all systems. A highway patrol officer, for example, would most likely only be able to query DMV, Wants/Warrants, and Stolen Vehicles - and that's assuming they have the ability to access it themselves instead of having to call it in to a dispatcher.
The West Virginia number is most likely at the FBI's NCIC.
Re:New edition will also offer . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:2, Informative)
Well .. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged and now I may want to.
Re:Check yourself, (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't new. The government's sneaky voyeurs have pulled this shit time and time again against nonviolent "subversives".
Speaking of sneaky, there's more than pork added to the bailout bill.
Browsing through it I happened to notice "Sec. 201 Permanent Authority For Undercover Operations" on page 296. Not quite sure what that is, but it's a fair guess there was very little time for discussion with it in that bill. Whatever it is may very well be needed, but I have to wonder if it would have been permanent if handled in separate legislation that was more-fully discussed and reviewed before passage.
Don't just go by the news summaries of what is in that bill, check out the 724 K PDF of HR1424, the full bill [senate.gov].
Re:Terrorists? (Score:1, Informative)
Let's be more specific: Everyone has the right to all those views even if they aren't peaceful about it. /Only/ the "not peaceful" part should get anyone in trouble, and solely for not being peaceful. Viewpoints must not enter into it in any way.
That's as crucial as, and related to, separation of Church and State. ... which yeah I know you're still working on that, too. Look, keep at it. Democracy does not exist because a piece of paper was signed, or a ballot deposited. Democracy is always a work in progress. The principle 'Justice Must Be Seen To Be Done' requires that you go look yourself. It's a cradle-to-grave responsibility.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:1, Informative)
Newsflash -- Maryland is run by the Democrats (Score:3, Informative)
Before launching into the predictable McCain / Palin rant and canned Republican-bashing, do just a little research: I live in Maryland. Maryland has a Democrat for a governor and our state legislature has been controlled by the Dems for the better part of 40 years. We're a solid-blue, one-party state in the truest sense of the word. We don't even get any presidential advertising because the state is such a lock for Obama (due to the huge black majorities in Baltimore City and Prince Georges County). Of course, almost all of the activity took place in Baltimore City and during the tenure of Democrat Mayor (now Governor) Martin O'Malley (conveniently pleading ignorance, of course). The same Governor O'Malley who created a "structural deficit" last year and called an unprecedented special session of the legislature last year in order to raise the sales tax, institute a $2 / pack cig tax, etc., after he promised during his campaign to only tax the rich (sound familiar?) The same Martin O'Malley who is threatening to raise taxes again if he doesn't get is precious slot machines approved during the upcoming referendum. We Marylanders are living in fear of losing what little is left of our financial freedom at the hands of the insatiable spending in Annapolis. Because, of course, O'Malley and his comrades in Annapolis know better than us serfs what is Good for The State.
If you think the Republicans are the only ones who'd love to remove your civil liberties, or even the most likely to do it, you're a complete retard. Loss of freedom, indeed -- MD is one of the last states where it's impossible for someone without government connections to get a concealed carry weapon -- unless you submit as part of your application documentation of the violent crimes *already* committed against you. Yeah, thank God the Dems are watching out for us Marylanders' civil liberties!
US Revolution (Score:5, Informative)
In today's terms, the founding fathers are nothing more than terrorist-loving war criminals.
Benjamin Franklin [uncyclopedia.org] was almost tortured. James Madison opposed judicially sanctioned impalements and being drawn and quartered in public squares. His "cruel and unusual punishment" is embodied in the Constitution's 8th amendment [usconstitution.net]: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. George Washington captured more than a thousand Hessian mercenaries at the battle of Trenton on Dec. 25, 1776 [typepad.com] and ordered his troops to treat them with "respect and dignity and they will suffer no abuse or torture". Chairman of the Board of War and Ordinance John Adams [familytales.org] wrote in a letter to Abigail Adams on 27 April 1777 of a "strong a light as the barbarity and impiety of Briton, in this persecuting war." The USA's Founding Fathers knew of torture and opposed it. It's such a shame the Bush admin has gone out of it's way to justify torture.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:4, Informative)
You should try reading The Real Lincoln by Lorenzo [amazon.com].
I can dismiss a lot of the things Lincoln said and did which today would seem racist, but the book has a lot more than that.
It spends a lot more time dissecting the reasons Lincoln went to war, his police state and his economic agenda. He uses a lot of sources from the time period to make his cases.
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Informative)
You really have no idea what socialism is do you,
You have a right wing candidate and an ultra right wing candidate. None of your politicians would be classed as socialist in any other country.
Insightful-you must be joking mods.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:3, Informative)
You should have a look at the UK.
Quote [wikipedia.org]: "In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over £20,000, and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. In 1974, just 750,000 people were eligible to pay the top-rate of income tax."
CC.
Re:Needs a refresher 'civics' course. (Score:3, Informative)
...read this document that grants you your freedoms
It does no such thing. It acknowledges a subset of the "unalienable Rights" [ushistory.org] with which they were "endowed by their Creator".
The difference is huge. If the constitution "grants" me rights, then the states can change it to revoke those rights. However, if those rights are "unalienable" because they were granted by someone above the state's pay grade (to coin a phrase), then the states lack the authority to revoke them.
This was precisely the argument laid out in the Declaration of Independence to justify the American Revolution.
Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now...