ACLU estimates that U.S. watch list is at a million names

The ACLU estimates that the U.S. watch list is at a million names. The estimate is based on this report from last year, which says the list is at 700,000 names and growing by 20,000 per month. The DHS claims the list is at 400,000. The TSA already has a response up with some additional interesting numbers and some fun responses.

My favorite "Busted Myth":

TSA wrote:

MYTH: Ted Kennedy, Catherine Stevens, and "Robert Johnson" are all on the no-fly or selectee watch lists.

BUSTER: These individuals are NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists. They, and other Americans, are being misidentified as individuals on the selectee list.

Wow! Thanks for this, Aetius. I was really interested in some of the myth-busting, too. Just the fact that the real numbers are so far off base blows my mind.

TSA wrote:

The center has said publicly that there are less than 400,000 individuals on the overall consolidated watch list, 95 percent of whom are not U.S. persons and the vast majority of whom are not even in the U.S.

See, that just makes sense to me - the fact that the majority aren't US persons, and not even in the states!

[edit] Well, if you follow the responses, I'm probably just a brainless citizen who nods my head at whatever the innocent government has to say. I guess I should expect that, since I am actually for extremely tough screening of people about to fly.

Dragonfly wrote:

[edit] Well, if you follow the responses, I'm probably just a brainless citizen who nods my head at whatever the innocent government has to say. I guess I should expect that, since I am actually for extremely tough screening of people about to fly.

I'm all for tough screening as well - the main issue is that tough screening doesn't have anything to do with a "watch list" of names. To give a comparison, what the TSA/DHS is basically saying is that there is a group of people out there that's the size of the U.S. Army that they need to watch. That's ridiculous. Add to this the fact that no terrorist in their right mind would show identification with their real name, and you end up with "security" that is completely meaningless ... unless what you're really after is hassling people who are not terrorists, but might disagree with your politics. These people WILL show correct ID, because they are honest citizens.

When the ACLU reveals how many terrorists we've identified, it's providing aid and comfort to the terrorists, which is all part of its liberal war on Christianity! D:

To give a comparison, what the TSA/DHS is basically saying is that there is a group of people out there that's the size of the U.S. Army that they need to watch. That's ridiculous. Add to this the fact that no terrorist in their right mind would show identification with their real name, and you end up with "security" that is completely meaningless ... unless what you're really after is hassling people who are not terrorists, but might disagree with your politics. These people WILL show correct ID, because they are honest citizens.

This isn't just a terrorism list, its a list of people who've caused disturbances on flights, gotten in fights with airline personal, made threats against airlines. The majority of the list are mentally disturbed. Another group of names are aliases, because you're right, bad guys don't use proper ID. DHS has a f*cking boner for using the word "TERRORIST" and really needs to stop. The people this system is designed to screen out is the paranoid skitzo on aisle 4 who thinks planes are the devils penis.

devils penis.

Heh.

MaverickDago wrote:

planes are the devils penis.

Well, if his evil and treacherous penis gets me across large distances without much hassle or time, then sign me up for the Satan plane!

A whole new meaning to ejection seats.

The whole reason for the list is to [i[prevent terrorism[/i], not to prevent annoying people.

Annoying mentally disturbed people are more of a threat then terrorism. The flight watch lists were in effect before 9/11 they just weren't called "TERROR!!!! watch lists"

It's going to be used to suppress political dissent, if it isn't already happening.

That could be said of any federal oversight or list. You think we shouldn't have one at all?

MaverickDago wrote:

That could be said of any federal oversight or list. You think we shouldn't have one at all?

Give me one good reason why their should be one in the first place. Any well funded person would be able to buy a new identity and get fake id's for a plane ride. So you are stopping the poor terrorists and the "crazies" from getting on planes.

I am already tired of the dog and pony show that the TSA puts on for the passengers so that they "feel safer" about their flight. The new "expert traveler lanes" has just put the last nail in the coffin for me. This has been a marketing campaign from day one.

So you are stopping the poor terrorists and the "crazies" from getting on planes.

I agree the TSA is mostly sh*t, but most Americans won't go with harsher security without pissing and moaning, so this is what we get.

We don't need the security. It's a lie.

Strengthen the cockpit doors, and put a failsafe button on the plane that disables all manual controls and lands the plane. Problem solved. If the failsafe system is out in the wings or far in the nose, no terrorist is going to be able to control the plane; the best they'll be able to do is crash it. If there's an incident bad enough, the pilots push the button and the plane either lands or crashes; it can't be used as a weapon. No political objective can be achieved.

Besides, as I think someone said upthread, after 9/11, no plane will ever again be hijacked on American soil. The passengers will no longer submit to a hijack attempt. Hijacking ceased to be a useful tactic after the third plane hit. It will never work again.

So why aren't they doing that instead? Because airport security isn't about terrorism at all.

DHS has a f*cking boner for using the word "TERRORIST" and really needs to stop. The people this system is designed to screen out is the paranoid skitzo on aisle 4 who thinks planes are the devils penis.

The whole reason for the list is to prevent terrorism, not to prevent annoying people.

It's feature creep; it's already not being used for terrorism. As soon as the real protests start when the economy starts going really south, that system is going to grow, very quickly.

It's going to be used to suppress political dissent, if it isn't already happening.

edit: dear god, I should learn to proofread.

The plane that crashed in Shanksville, PA demonstrated exactly that. Within a half an hour from the first plane smashing into the WTC, America had identified and diagnosed the problem and come up with a spontaneous, bottom-up remedy that was far more competent than any response the Bush Administration has come up with since. Ironically, the solution was in empowering and entrusting citizens to do the right thing. Tragically, the Bush Administration appears to think that more of the opposite is far more politically expedient.

Paleocon wrote:

Within a half an hour from the first plane smashing into the WTC, America had identified and diagnosed the problem and come up with a spontaneous, bottom-up remedy that was far more competent than any response the Bush Administration has come up with since. Ironically, the solution was in empowering and entrusting citizens to do the right thing.

I think we might all be happier with their spontaneous solution if there had been any survivors...

MaverickDago wrote:
So you are stopping the poor terrorists and the "crazies" from getting on planes.

I agree the TSA is mostly sh*t, but most Americans won't go with harsher security without pissing and moaning, so this is what we get.

Please, tell me why we need anything harsher. And what would harsher entail?

A full blown cavity search?
Asking the government for "permission" to fly every time you plan a trip?
A body scan a la science fiction movies?
A lie detector test before you go on the plane?

Over 40,000 people die in automotives every year in the U.S., and some people are worried that some terrorist is going to kill ~200 people in a plane once in awhile. People assume the risks in driving cars, they should assume the risks in taking a flight. The TSA is all marketing.

And before you say "but a plane can be used as a weapon", thats bullsh*t. Automotives are used as weapons all the time.

put a failsafe button on the plane that disables all manual controls and lands the plane.

Does such a thing exist? Just curious.

The whole concept of airline security is apparently being created by a gang of mentally disabled monkees living on {ableist slur} Island.

The reality is NO pilot is ever going to allow entry into the cockpit of their airplane ever again. To surrender the cockpit is certain death and everyone on the airplane knows it.

The situation on 9/11 happened because of previously established protocols. In the event of a highjacking you sit down, keep your mouth shut and there was a pretty good chance you would live to get off the plane. The terrorists on 9/11 changed all that. I find it hard to imagine that 200-300 people are going to sit quietly on an airplane while 5-6 terrorists try to knock down the cockpit door.

I can tell you this much, if it ever happens on a plane I'm on the bastards better know how to fly because I'm opening the f*cking door and throwing them out at 10,000 feet. If you think your taking my life because you've got a box cutter I've got news for you.

Stop the explosives, guns and knives from getting on the planes and the "normal" passengers will take care of your security for you.

Mayfield wrote:

Please, tell me why we need anything harsher. And what would harsher entail?

If you do anything to attract their attention, you are not allowed to fly. If you protest, you are arrested.

Please, tell me why we need anything harsher. And what would harsher entail?

A full blown cavity search?
Asking the government for "permission" to fly every time you plan a trip?
A body scan a la science fiction movies?
A lie detector test before you go on the plane?

El Al security is what I like. Actually trained agents talking to passengers, pressurization of luggage prior to loading, more sky marshals.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Mayfield wrote:

Please, tell me why we need anything harsher. And what would harsher entail?

If you do anything to attract their attention, you are not allowed to fly. If you protest, you are arrested.

Oh, that can't easily be abused.

We'll just combine the DNF list with the new bracelet program(http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/3...) and everyone will be on the list soon...

Does such a thing exist? Just curious.

I really doubt it's that easy. Planes can fly automated paths and land after hitting certain approach landmarks at designated speeds and altitudes. All that stuff is pre-programmed, though. Doing it from any arbitrary point would be difficult. I would think it would require a whole new support structure and capability, perhaps to include remote access. I'm as skeptical as you are.

Why not just put in a remote piloting system? For that matter, why not use a sleep-gas system in the passenger compartment? Permanently sealed armored cockpits with external entrances? Restraints for all passengers during flight? Armed flight attendants?

If you want to spend tens or hundreds of millions defeating a once-a-decade threat, well, I think Bin Laden would be happy with that. All that expense and the terrorists have to do *nothing*. Maybe post a vaguely worded threat against the West's airlines, or get some London-based fanatic to try sneaking nail polish remover on a plane.

In my opinion, we are very little safer for the massive and expensive investment we've put into TSA.

That's because it's not really about terrorism.

Reporter critical of TSA put on watch list.

Like I suspected: it's already being used to suppress political dissent.

It has nothing to do with terrorism, and it never did.

Farscry wrote:

Well, if his evil and treacherous penis gets me across large distances without much hassle or time, then sign me up for the Satan plane!

I just read this. And it's so good for my work computer that I finished my glass of water a couple of minutes ago.

As for the the topic at hand, I keep wanting to imagine that there is some happy medium, here. A medium between people who think anything the government has to say about terrorism and security is a lie, and those, like me, that want to believe that something that has had so much money and energy sunk into it has a purpose...

Dragonfly, if we were actually doing sensible things to combat terrorism, then I'd believe them. But we aren't; we're doing things that won't stop terrorists, but which massively increase law enforcement's ability to search and seize. It's not about terrorism at all. You can tell because of the tactics they're choosing to use.

If they really wanted to stop terrorism, I'd have no problem with massive search power, as long as the evidence found in a terrorism investigation wasn't admissible for any other kind of crime. Anything not related to terrorism would have to be ignored. (and terrorism would have to be VERY tightly defined.) If they found, say, a pot garden during a terrorist investigation, they'd have to ignore it, and in fact wouldn't be allowed to prosecute you for it under any jurisdiction. Using their special search powers would immensely reduce their ability to prosecute you for almost all crimes, so they'd have to really, really think about whether they wanted to use them.

But they didn't do anything like that, because the terrorism and search laws are about the War on Drugs (which is really the War on Blacks, but that's a different subject) in the inner cities. And if you don't think those techniques and tactics are going to get out into the mainstream, where they're gonna mess you up if you dare to be an activist for changing this sort of thing, then you haven't been watching government as long as I have.

The one thing authoritarians can't stand is a challenge to their authority, and they'll do anything they're allowed to in order to shut down challengers and make sure they're not a threat. We've just given them immense power to do so.

When you consider what they were willing to do illegally before, how much further than the written law are they going to go now?

The following is an excerpt from an interview with former President Nixon conducted by David Frost. It aired on television on May 19, 1977.

FROST: The wave of dissent, occasionally violent, which followed in the wake of the Cambodian incursion, prompted President Nixon to demand better intelligence about the people who were opposing him. To this end, the Deputy White House Counsel, Tom Huston, arranged a series of meetings with representatives of the CIA, the FBI, and other police and intelligence agencies.

These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan. Five days later, after opposition from J. Edgar Hoover, the plan was withdrawn, but the president's approval was later to be listed in the Articles of Impeachment as an alleged abuse of presidential power.

FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?

NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.

FROST: Pulling some of our discussions together, as it were; speaking of the Presidency and in an interrogatory filed with the Church Committee, you stated, quote, "It's quite obvious that there are certain inherently government activities, which, if undertaken by the sovereign in protection of the interests of the nation's security are lawful, but which if undertaken by private persons, are not." What, at root, did you have in mind there?

NIXON: Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

Now that's the kind of action I'm referring to. Of course in Lincoln's case it was the survival of the Union in wartime, it's the defense of the nation and, who knows, perhaps the survival of the nation.

FROST: But there was no comparison was there, between the situation you faced and the situation Lincoln faced, for instance?

NIXON: This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president. Now it's true that we didn't have the North and the South—

FROST: But when you said, as you said when we were talking about the Huston Plan, you know, "If the president orders it, that makes it legal", as it were: Is the president in that sense—is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law?

NIXON: No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven't read every word, every jot and every title, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we're all talking about.

NIXON: There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven't read every word, every jot and every title

What??!!

Abstract of a cost-benefit analysis of airline security measures.

The Freakanomics blog just did a post about the study Robear linked to. "They found that hardened cockpit doors cost roughly $800,000 per life saved [...] while the air marshal program to cost roughly $180 million per life saved. The FAA considers anything that costs less than $3 million per life saved to be cost effective."