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."
In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Insightful)
...those jokes are getting less and less funny.
That's all I have to say about that.
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:In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure *we* learn about it quicker, but what we need is the average American to hear about it.. and understand what is going on.
Until then, *we* will just be pushed aside, and added to the lists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems an appropriate time to ask this: Is your sig meant to disparage Booth, patriotism, or Lincoln? Are you saying that Booth, generally regarded as a bad guy, was actually acting honorably? Are you saying that patriotism is not all it's cracked up to be, because Booth was acting out of patriotism and look at the horrible thing he did? Are you saying that Booth and patriotism are both good things, because Lincoln was bad?
Help me, I'm overcome by multiple interpretations!
OT: Sig (Score:5, Insightful)
its not meant to disparage anything or anyone. it is to demonstrate how relative things are depending on who gets to write the history books, and to make people think.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
-Ovid
In every country ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately most people fail to see the connection between lists and any danger. The lists are being made to influence people who speaking out against the ones in power. But most people fail to see the danger of giving the power seekers ever more data to mine on everyone. Knowledge is power and the ones in power seek the use that knowledge to prevent people standing against their point of view.
With ever more detailed lists on peoples views, soon we end up with people fearful of what they say on the phone and in emails, for fear of their views could even just risk being taken out of context and in any way critical of the people in power. At that point, the ones in power are influencing people directly.
At that point, we live in a police state, where freedom is gone and replaced by fear of the ones in power. Problem is, we are getting there now, and from here on out, its simply a matter of consolidation of ever more detailed data mining.
The central reason why centuries ago votes were made in secret, was to prevent the ones in power, from seeking to influence the voters. Yet the power seekers are forever seeking to game the system to gain ever more information on peoples opinions. Now the ones in power are building automated systems to influence people.
Throughout history its been shown time and time again that the ones in power become ever more corrupt over time without any feedback on how they are behaving. Its been show so many times through history.
Most people don't realise the the game people in power are playing. People in power are not so interested in individuals. The ones in power are interested in adding everyone to different lists so they can then control and profiling groups of people, so they can then use divide and conquer tactics, to break groups of people up. The goal is that the fragmented groups cannot then stand and oppose the point of view of the ones in power. That is why they data mine.
The lessons of history have not been learned by enough people. Looks like the world is seeking to repeat the mistakes of the past. Freedom and democracy are constantly undermined by a minority of people in power for their own gain. Its just a matter of time and how far we are going to let them all game the system to push the excesses ever more unfairly in their favour. After all, its not as if they are robbing hundreds of billions of tax payers money to keep their rich lifestyles while millions risk loosing everything.
Anyway, if the millions of people can't buy bread, then let them eat cake. ... My point is, the names in history change and the names of their ideologies change. But what remains is basic human psychology and that doesn't change. The lack of empathy of the ones in power over their powerless minions never changes. For all their words, its only their actions which count and millions now face loosing their jobs and millions are treated unfairly by the ones in power.
In such a world, its no surprise that the ones in power would want to watch their minions very closely. After all, people could start to complain its getting all to unfair. But we cannot have that. We need ever more laws to protect the ones in power and ever more laws to keep the minions down and away from power.
The world will never change until everyone worldwide realises that people who constantly seek power over others have a recognisable cluster B personality disorder. All cluster B personality disorders are ultimately driven by fear. And the ones with the disorder constantly seek to control that fear and control everyone around them based on their fear. (There are multiple fears, two examples are lack of attention and the other is fear of lack of power. The attention seekers want more attention (they were deprived of parental attention as children. The ones who want power seek to prevent anyone ever having power over them again, the way they were treated unfairly as children).
These are not the kinds of people who should have power over anyone. They need
Re:In every country ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad, but true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Beautifully said.
I see the current two-party system as the ultimate gesture of divide and conquer. Roughly half of the population believes that the other half is wrong and feels a mix of strong negative emotions against it. But the fact is, the whole (non-elite) population suffers, and our power and choices are taken away from us as soon as we believe the polititians' bs and forget that our unity is the only thing more powerful than the elite's tools.
If we unite, we can take down the gas prices.
If we unite,
Re:In every country ... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, yeah, but are you for or against abortion???
Re:In every country ... (Score:5, Interesting)
soon we end up with people fearful of what they say on the phone and in emails
If you were friends or colleagues with anyone who has ever worked in the intelligence community, you would know that there are plenty of people who already act likes this. I was first cut off with a curt "not over the phone" talking to a friend who was ex-DSD (Aust. intel) in the mid nineties. To say that things have deterioated somewhat since then would be an understatement.
The most recent trend with my ex-intel friends, by the way, is to use private nameservers. I have absolutely no evidence as to why that might be necessary. I am just sayin', that's what they're doing now.
Re:In every country ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically speaking the technology is now appearing that will force change. A simple genetic test for sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies and a permanent block being placed upon those individuals from ever running for public office, of becoming company executives , or pretty much being banned from any position where they can gain control of or exploit other people.
Which pretty much means all those current arse holes at the top will be permanently prevented from ever getting there again and, oh boy, will they lie, cheat, kill and steal kill to prevent that from happening. It is likely to happen but that implementation period is likely to be painful and bloody.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes you think the final result will be any better than what you have now?
Could it be any worse?
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's see. There was Andrew Johnson, who blocked reconstruction by supporting "black codes", vetoing the Civil Rights bill, and opposing the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, he was impeached for removing the Secretary of War from office without Senate approval.
There was Calvin Coolidge, who accomplished little and is most responsible for encouraging the economic irresponsibility that led to the Great Depression.
There was Herbert Hoover, who raised the top tax bracket to a confiscatory 63% during the Depression.
There was also FDR, who seized privately held gold and started numerous entitlement programs that treated symptoms instead of actually helping the economy. The depression that lasted nine years after he came into office, ending only after firing up the war machine.
Finally, there is LBJ, who is truly responsible for dragging the USA into the Vietnam War.
If you are able to objectively compare some of our dubious chief executives of the past, instead of focusing on the present with the attention span of a puppy, you might find yourself retracting your assertion. The fact that you acknowledge Lincoln made a grave error indicates that you may qualify as an amateur historian, but you know far less than you think you do.
Re: (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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About Lincoln (Score:5, Insightful)
You must not know very much about Lincoln if that's why you think so many people think he was a tyrant. I'd recommend picking up a history book on the Lincoln presidency to see what he did. Here's a hint: Not even Bush has jailed journalists critical of him.
Of course, people always make excuses for the great "Dear Leaders".
Oh yeah, and our "great" FDR also put a whole bunch of Japanese in concentration... er, I mean "internment", that sounds less worse, right, right... he put many Japanese in internment camps, ruining many lives. Such a swell, progressive man!
Re:About Lincoln (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that makes Bush the worst president ever is because he's done bad things but is to mind boggling stupid to understand what he's done.
I can live with evil, it's stupidity I have a hard time with.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, what brings Bush to a new low is that instead of the ends justifying the means like with Lincoln and FDR, for Bush there is no justification, no logic, no sense, no idea other than party first, most, and always.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lincoln's greatest crime was against the Constitution itself. The Union's changes to the way our Federal system works have persisted to this day, and laid the ground work for the police state we are now approaching.
Remember, the Confederacy believed in the Constitutional tenant that 'anything not explicitly provided to the Federal government was the purview of the States'. THAT is why they seceded, more than any other reason.
While they were gone, all the Federal mandates that had been failing to be passed
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. I doubt any of them laughs when they get turned away from the check-in counter next time they which to take an flight to somewhere. "Sorry sir, you are on a terrorist watch list. You can't fly with us today. Next!..."
The real joke nowadays, is freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real joke nowadays, is freedom.
Shhh...We don't don't discuss that during election season.
Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
If you disagree with the government you are an enemy of the state and it's the police that will deal with you. There's a name for this ideology: fascism.
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I would rather beat Bush for pushing us farther down the iceberg. But he wasn't the only one, rebpulican democrat it doesn't matter, each president has taken more and m ore freedom away from the. individual
Re:Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Full text available here [wikisource.org].
I wish the current G.W. would have read this excerpt:
30 As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
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:Fascism (Score:4, Interesting)
This occurred under the administration of Republican Robert Erlich, and was authorized by Erhlich's appointed state police superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins. Not that our Maryland Democrats don't have shit to answer for, but this one was a GOP play all the way.
Ha! If Maryland border on an economic system based on the exchange of labor, instead of the control of capital by an owning class, I've somehow missed it for 38 years. (Here's a hint for you: regulated capitalism is not socialism.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't 1930 and we aren't in Italy or Germany, nor are we discussing a far-left sociopolitical system of government control of private industry.
You are quite correct, this is 2008.
What's the appropriate term for a far-right sociopolitical system of private industry control over government?
Re:Fascism (Score:4, Interesting)
By definition, there is no such thing. The "far right" would never be in favor of the government controlling private industry.
Read it again slowly. It isn't government that controls the businesses, but the businesses that control government. And corporations are required by law to be amoral (which is essentially immoral), and they are the ones running the governemnt for their benefit. That's sufficiently close to the effect of fascism that there is no need to create a new word when we can co-opt a previouse word, especially since many people already believe that to be the definition.
Check yourself, (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing which scares me more is the CLETS [calstate.edu].
CLETS is basically a law-enforcement database which compiles info on people regardless of charge or conviction. I found out about it after my buddy interviewed well for a prison job only to be called at the last minute -- he was denied employment(even after having passed the DOJ LiveScan [usafingerprinting.com]) because of a petty theft charge of which he was never convicted. Doing more research, we found that basically any cop can write anything about you that they want whether or not you were charged or convicted. It's a sneaky way to criminalize somebody without actually going through the legal motions.
It's been awhile since I checked it out, but from what I recall it had something to do with www.leo.gov [leo.gov] and its "public inquiry" phone number led to a place in West Virginia!
I wasn't able to find all the details(who may access the database etc.) but I suggest that you Californians follow the yellow brick road and hopefully discover what the good ol' boys think about you, before it bites you in the ass someday. Happy hunting.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they didn't have a category for "not guilty" in their database?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't even have a field that this could go into. It's just a generic database of people who have been in contact with the police and why.
Now, it's shocking, shocking I say, that it would be misused (used?) in this way.
And it does seem stupid to me to enter "terrorists" into a database of drug traffickers. While there is a small amount of overlap between the two groups, this smacks of a "hmm, where can we put this information on terrorists. Well sir, we have the database of drug traffickers. We coul
Re: (Score:2)
>I suggest that you Californians follow the yellow brick road and hopefully discover what the good ol' boys think about you, before it bites you in the ass someday. Happy hunting.
How do you expect the Californians to hunt, when you take away all their guns?
Don't worry, Mr. Anderson. We'll take care of you. We're from the government!
Re:Check yourself, (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a sneaky way to criminalize somebody without actually going through the legal motions.
It's just a fact that getting into trouble with the police can screw you over without charge or conviction. If your family, neighbours and job see the police search your home and workplace or the media blast your name all over without ever reaching a conviction, that would probably do a lot of damage to you even if you're innocent. I've not heard of it being kept on record and used against you permanently like that, but it's not the first job anyone's lost...
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:Check yourself, (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Yeah, and law enforcement tracking and harassing peaceful activists is nothing new either. They've been doing it since well before the 60s. I guess I'm not supposed to worry, because they added computer databases to their toolbox for doing this a long time ago?
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.
I'm sure they do, in so far as the factual data (location, occupation etc) is inaccurate, or any information doesn't actually lead them to any person they are really interested in. Who likes that?
On the other hand, if it is someone they're interested in (for political not criminal reasons) but don't have any actual dirt on, and what is written in the database gives them an excuse to have a little fun RICO- or USAPATRIOT-style, then that lack of proper auditing is a boon, now isn't it?
And don't tell me I'm being paranoid, police and the feds have both been caught abusing their powers vis-a-vis those two laws to act against benign and harmless but anti-establishment activist groups repeatedly. Hell, the FBI has submitted reports to Congress stating their use of USAPATRIOT powers in such cases, that's how ballsy they are about it. So I'm bracketing that on one side with MLK Jr. on the other and saying that's not paranoia in between, it's business as usual.
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.
Well someone had write access and put these activists names on the list, and classified them as terrorists. Somebody had the write access to create the categories "terrorism-anti-government" and "terrorism-anti-war protesters". So your assurances, even coming as they do from personal experience, don't mean very much to me.
My cousin worked for the NSA. He told me if I knew what they really did, I'd be very disappointed. I trust him so I bet from his perspective that's true. Which would mean they must not have invited him into the wiretapping-millions-of-Americans room and told him what they were up to.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously - is there anything more obnoxious than a snot-nosed black-flag-waving peace activist?
I dunno, how about tyranny?
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].
It's NOT the DATA MINING (Score:2, Insightful)
Having personally used Multiple Data Mining techniques for several years now - It's not that Data Mining doesn't work, rather it's how its used. Data Mining is great at trend forecasting and if you're really good at what you're doing in it you can factor in probabilities of certain future events. The one key factor in data mining is a "Training Set" of Data to teach the machine(s) how to recognize the patterns. Since I suspect Terrorist come from every walk of life, every know nationality, and are using 1 o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the topic of TFA, is it just me or did they basically say the equivalent of "We didn't have an option for 'we hate this guy because he disagrees with us, he should be harassed' so instead they picked 'terrorist'"?
Re: (Score:2)
So, putting dissident activists together with terrorists kinda screws up the data mining efforts.
Given the amount of arbitrary power that governments award themselves in the name of national security, I would not be suprised if malice > stupidity in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is that data mining doesn't work, against this particular problem. That's because data mining works for, as you say, trends and probabilities. But terrorists are individual events, making up something under one millionth of the population, and data mining simply can't see that kind of thing.
All these lists are insane (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've done something illegal, then arrest and prosecute them. If they haven't, then they should be free to go about their lives.
All innocent people should be equal in the eyes of the law.
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:5, Funny)
All innocent people should be equal in the eyes of the law.
But some are more equal than others.....
Sincerely,
Mr. G. Orwell
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:5, Informative)
--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:5, Interesting)
If they've done something illegal, then arrest and prosecute them. If they haven't, then they should be free to go about their lives.
You're absolutely right. Hutchins and Sheridan should be arrested and prosecuted for slander, making defamatory statements, and abridging the civil rights of the 53 people they falsely accused of a truly heinous crime. And they should certainly be given a fair trial, and if found innocent their records should be cleaned and they should be free to go about their lives.
But saying stuff like "the activists' names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries" should be very compelling evidence of making the false accusation in the first place. Trying to fix it later should be strong evidence that the suspects knew what they had done was wrong, and therefore had malice aforethought. There was no good faith here. This was an outright criminal act designed to deny 53 people their rights as citizens.
I'd say those 53 defendants have a pretty solid case on their hands.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a sickening amount of "cowboy" and "U.S. is #1" mentality out here. These same people think we still wear the "white hat" in all of this and that everyone else is just wrong.
There are a variety of reasons Republicans should lose by a wide margin... but those same reasons also apply to Democrats.
We need something better... more closely resembling the original plan of government for the U.S.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I so wish there were term limits for all government offices. In for two terms then you HAVE to be out for one term. You can run again and if you win, be in for two more terms before having to be out again. They have to win each term. If this was done maybe there would be politicians who would listen to the people they are supposed to be representing in office.
Then again, those same politicians would have to vote for this idea.... which they would never do. (sigh)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
resembling the original plan of government for the U.S.
Ahhh, you would be referring to the right of the people to overthrow the chains of tyranny and control their own destiny, as stated in the constitution.
That, my friend, is sedition & terrorism, especially because they used warfare methods that violated the accepted "rules of war"
In today's terms, the founding fathers are nothing more than terrorist-loving war criminals.
Nice how things change, hmm?
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:All these lists are insane (Score:4, Insightful)
... and as a non-american, I wonder how come (esp after 8 years of Bush/Cheney) McCaine is still in the race. And I am not saying this as endorsement to the Democrats, but by default, any other major opposition to McCaine should have won the election by now. Just 8% lead? This probably will explain why such lists exist and abused.
First, you can't judge anything by the statistics put out so far. Looking at the trend graphs exactly who is in the lead at any given time depends on when you ask, and which source of data you use. Mostly it comes down to how the pick the people to poll.
Second, McCaine is still in the running for a variety of reasons. To start with, he claims to represent a government reform and responsibility platform. Whether he'll follow through on it, or if it really is as he presents it (instead of say a way to make life difficult for politicians and organizations he doesn't like) is yet to be seen. He also, like it or not, has a better foreign relations policy (at least as of right now) at least from an economic standpoint, something many Americans are particularly worried about right now. There's also the (unfortunately) strong right wing Christian contingent that will vote for him because they perceive him (and his young earth creationist running mate) as strongly supporting the Christian church (whichever one that happens to be). Lastly there are a depressingly large number of people that are just plain racist and will vote for him for no other reason than the opposition is a black man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
McCain will lose. It was over the instant he picked Palin.
But to suggest democrats will be nicer and ensure your freedoms or anything of that nature is ridiculous.
I registered to vote recently - my political party is officially "Teh LOL Cats". Invisible Candidate '08!
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know what scares me actually? It's that we really have lost the middle ground. ... there is still, thank God, a strong centrist element to actual American thinking
You lost the middle ground a long time ago, and you lost it because there is no left in your country - only right, and far right.
What's amusing to the rest of the world is that you call Democrats "left".
New edition will also offer . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . the "Thoughtcrime" classification.
Who made this software? Someone who watches their "24" DVD set over and over?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:New edition will also offer . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
. . . the "Thoughtcrime" classification.
Who made this software? Someone who watches their "24" DVD set over and over?
Why do you attack the people who wrote the software? The fact that "the software offered limited options for classifying entries" shows that those people put much more thought into who could be legitimately tracked with the software than the police.
terrorism-whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:terrorism-whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the "terrorism-anti-war protesters" category even exists should be a gigantic red flag that something is seriously wrong with whoever set up the system in the first place.
Terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
They sure don't seem to be terrorists from what anyone has presented. Everyone has the right to be a left-wing, right-wing, religious, gay, slashdot, anti-slashdot, or whatever other type of wingnut they want. So long as they are peaceful about it, that is.
Perhaps the "limited options" were there for a reason - those were the only valid reasons for entry in the first place. Anyone who didn't match probably shouldn't have been entered in the first place.
Being politically active is not terrorism. Terrorism is violence with the aim of influencing public behavior in such a way as to subvert either the popular will or to force a government to give concessions to the group in question.
These lists could be a really useful tool for stopping stupid asshats who are planning attacks, but that utility is lost if they are full of garbage data. From many descriptions, they are becoming about as good as randomly flipping through a phone book.
Purging the garbage is an excellent idea, both to protect innocent people's rights and to make the lists themselves a useful resource.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These lists could be a really useful tool for stopping stupid asshats who are planning attacks
The idea of lists like these is not to stop stupid asshats who are planning attacks. They are intended to induce fear in the public. Fear of the government. If people are afraid to publicly protest the stupid shit their government does - well then it is a lot easier for government to get away with whatever they want.
Additionally, in order to justify taking away everyone's rights - just about everyone is going to have to be a "terrorist".
Terrorism is violence with the aim of influencing public behavior in such a way as to subvert either the popular will or to force a government to give concessions to the group in question.
By the way - the goal nor the means of terrorism is politica
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They sure don't seem to be terrorists from what anyone has presented. Everyone has the right to be a left-wing, right-wing, religious, gay, slashdot, anti-slashdot, or whatever other type of wingnut they want.
Except those EMACS people ....
Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:2)
So much for guilty until proven innocent. If the correct classification doesn't exist, then don't enter in the name until one does. You wouldn't put their names in as murderers or child pornographers. They are not terrorists, don't call them such.
Re: (Score:2)
So much for guilty until proven innocent. If the correct classification doesn't exist, then don't enter in the name until one does. You wouldn't put their names in as murderers or child pornographers. They are not terrorists, don't call them such.
You're confusing the role of cop and judge. The courts hash out the whole proof of guilt thing. The cop is focused on justice. They're not always the same thing.
This is why, as a general rule, one should not trust anyone in a policing role (at least until you have a REAL good idea how they work). I've seen bureaucrats and FBI agents come up with some rather elaborate scenarios to describe a perpetrator. And while these scenarios aren't always completely without merrit, they tend to be an extreme interp
Why can't we arrest them? (Score:3, Interesting)
When can we arrest the police for falsely labeling us as terrorists?
How about huge personal lawsuits?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it libel when its printed in a database? Is there an establishing precedent?
"fringe people" (Score:2)
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? The security-state mindset doesn't care what your actual politics are. It cares what kind of person you are. You're either a Good God-Fearing Christian American, in which case everything you do is Good and Right and Just, or you're an Evil America-Hating /C/om/m/u/n/i/s/t/ Terrorist Sympathizer ("fringe person" for short) in which case everything you do is Wrong and must be Punished. And whatever the GGFCA's do to protect themselves from the EAH/C/TS's is by def
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Needs a refresher 'civics' course. (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government," [Hutchins] said.
I'm boggled.
That means, you get to watch them and make sure they're not storming the prison. That doesn't mean you get to disrupt their activities by putting them on terrorist watch lists because you're part of the grievances they're protesting about.
Re:Needs a refresher 'civics' course. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right, it's the second amendment that guarantees that right to disrupt the government :-)
Re:Needs a refresher 'civics' course. (Score:4, Insightful)
For the love of god, it's RIGHT THERE. Doesn't anyone read this thing? The document is beutiful to read, and powerful. For the good of yourself as a person sit the hell down and read this document that grants you your freedoms.
You know, I feel like a damn hippy bitching 'they're taking our rights', but you f-king know what? THEY ARE. We were warned since our very first president exactly how this would play out, and dispite the warnings of those greatest men this country has ever seen, we've let every one of their predictions come true without batting an eyelash. And I'm mad as hell not only at the government for thinking they can do that, but for the failed people of this nation who turn in their libertys like pokemon cards every time the words "Terrorist", "9/11", and "Family Values" appear in a speech.
(/rant)
Re: (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
If Google Were Doing It (Score:2, Insightful)
I work for a state agency that works with data quite a bit. If the people working there can enter data correctly 60% of the time I would be amazed. This is generally do to poor validation and apathetic workers. Then, the data is "mined" in either inappropriate or unintended ways. This information is handed up the food chain for decisions by people who have no clue about the nuances of the data, or even main concepts regarding it. All of a sudden, data mining doesn't work.
My main point here is to cautio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Data mining is great for providing statistical answers to questions. But the statistics can only be used for "inductive reasoning". The conclusion is not a fact, it's only a probability. "Joe learned how to make bombs in the army", "Joe is in an anti-war group", "Mary does not know how to make bombs", does not yield "Joe is an anti-war terrorist." It might yield "Joe has more potential to be an anti-war terrorist than Mary does."
Now, if there are more facts and premises, such as "People who plant bom
Ahhh, the Maryland State Police... (Score:2)
if $citizen law breaker then $crime == terror (Score:5, Insightful)
So what kind of terrorist did they hope to classify them as?
A slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if I decide to vote against the incumbents in political office I forfeit my first amendment rights? Or is it only if I discuss doing so? Maybe I have to put a sign in my yard first? Or is participation in or organization of a rally against those rascally incumbents a necessary precondition? How about a sit-in? Civil disobedience?
This sounds like the kind of thing where the bar will become lower and lower over time.
Best not to begin...
wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess there really is no limits to the complete incompetence which permeates law enforcement. We all had an impression of law enforcement as not very intelligent, and this just sears it in. Labeling someone as a terrorist because they exercise their Constitutional right to protest. The first amendment is very clear. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Crystal clear. Congress can make no laws prohibiting people to peaceably assemble.
And if congress can make no laws prohibiting it, law enforcement cannot enforce laws that do not exist. Therefore, law enforcement is violating the Constitutional rights of those citizens.
end of story.
Meh (Score:2)
And this is why all those people who say "I don't mind if they snoop cause I've got nothing to hide."
are asshats.....
no surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
The United States is a police state. Why is anyone surprised by news like this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no surprise (Score:4, Funny)
Caller: Hi, is Tony there?
Answerer: Tony Cocaine?
Caller: No, Tony Jones.
Answerer: Heroin rifles blowing up New York!
Caller: Um...
Answerer: Bin Laden plastic explosive Tonka Trucks! Eat Presidential kidneys with Senate explosive snacks!
Caller: I've got the wrong number, don't I?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's suprising because things like this are the exception, not the norm.
We clearly don't live in a police state, if we did, this would not make the news, this would not make any news, just as police using fingerprinting to identify suspects does not make the news. Not to minimize the dangers of the errosion of freedom, but let's please keep it realistic, not wild-eyed "the sky is falling" or rampant cynicism endemic to /.
If the US is a police state, then can you name a single country that isn't? If you ca
New Categories (Score:2, Funny)
Next categories for database:
terrorism-does-not-watch-Fox-News
terrorism-no-flag-pin
terrorism-no-support-the-troops-magnet
terrorism-fringe-person
Palin/Regan quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Stories like this underscore my feeling about Palin's quote from the VP debate:
"we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free."
I'm sure that the Republican's view of this is one of war/conquest and that America will lose to some foreign non-democratic state, but today the more urgent issue seems to be loss of civil liberties. Loss of freedom from expanding government power. It's the ultimate irony that the party that espouses this quote is most likely THE party that will remove all our civil liberties and turn freedom into just a memory.
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
These people should definitely charged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting people who aren't terrorists and who aren't likely to become terrorists on a terrorism watch list should either be a firing offense or a criminal offense.
I'm also in favor of criminalizing certain actions routinely carried out by law enforcement (police, prosecutors, etc.). Usually when excessive force is used by a police officer, the worst thing that happens is the officer is suspended or fired, even if the victim dies. Occasionally a police officer is fired. Even more rarely the police officer in question is charged with a crime. Also, if a prosecutor knowingly withholds exculpatory evidence, the most that happens is that the convicted person gets a new trial or is granted an appeal.
I'll give an example of how I think things should work, though I don't know that something like this has ever happened in the United States. Let's say a prosecutor withholds possibly exculpatory evidence in order to win a case where one of the possible penalties is death. Let's also say that the person charged is found guilty, and after exhausting all appeals is put to death. The original prosecutor should be charged with murder, first degree or second degree depending on the strength of the withheld evidence. If this happens in a death penalty state and the charge is first degree murder, then the death penalty should be on the table. If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt* that the original prosecutor knowingly withheld the exculpatory evidence then the original prosecutor should be convicted by a jury and given an appropriate sentence.
People in law enforcement should be held to higher standards than the general public, not lower.**
*If such a case were to occur, an independent prosecutor should be appointed, since in most jurisdictions prosecutors all know each other and aren't likely to vigorously prosecute such a case.
**I know this isn't likely to ever happen. I simply think it would be more just than the current system.
When there is no penalty for abusing the system... (Score:3, Insightful)
There will always be a number of people who will abuse it unless there is a penalty and a good chance of getting caught. The same with any rule, law, or system. There are many rules, laws, and systems that don't even define penalties for abuse. And the chances of getting caught abusing some of them are minuscule.
Classifications? (Score:5, Interesting)
Food for thought: is there an entry for "terrorism-anti-abortion protester"?
Does the Maryland State Police throw everyone who protests into the terrorist list, or only those who protest against whatever groups or policies that certain members of the State Police like?
Violent passivists (Score:3, Funny)
Those idiots should be a lot more worried about violent passivists, not non-violent activists. Granted, the passivists don't do much, but when they do it's a lot bloodier.
USA vs China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:USA vs China (Score:4, Interesting)
donttasemebro (Score:5, Insightful)
Can somebody please explain to me why a man trying to form some sort of human connection with a man who's torturing and about to kill him is funny?
I'm not saying it's *wrong* to make a joke of something like that or out of anything at all, I suppose. I guess I just don't see the irony in it. But go ahead, punish me for being Offtopic.
Peace Activists should join the police force (Score:4, Insightful)
Police I doubt have the training or experience to classify people as terrorists and therefore shouldn't be putting anybody on any lists, much less law abiding people interested in peace. The police should instead be focusing on arresting violent criminals and spammers. If the police would put as much effort into prosecuting spammers as they do towards persecuting people who want to live in a peaceful world then society would be a much better place to live. The sad thing is that peace activists are the type of people who would never be allowed to join a police force.
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?