|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 14, 2007 9:42:37 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 14, 2007 10:20:34 GMT -5
These are not all American but many foreign, like our friend Osama. Also, as the article notes, many are different names for the same people (like many spellings of Osama's name). So the 350,000 as about .01% of American population is overstated. |
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by CO_Hoya on Jun 14, 2007 10:37:13 GMT -5
From the link:
My emphasis added. And the math should be 0.1% (1 in 1000).
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 14, 2007 10:39:28 GMT -5
These are not all American but many foreign, like our friend Osama. Also, as the article notes, many are different names for the same people (like many spellings of Osama's name). So the 350,000 as about .01% of American population is overstated. 350,000 is the number of individuals whose names have been placed on the list based on their activities. However, if I understand it correctly, once a name shows up on the watch list it applies to anyone with that name. How many people are there in America named Adam Gaughan, for example? Or John Lindh? If a person with my vanilla-sounding name joined al-Qaeda, about 20 people in Austin alone would find it difficult to fly. There is no telling how many people the 509,000 names apply to. Though there is no way of knowing for certain, my previous post more likely understated the number of Americans this list affects. On edit: Actually the dude's name is Adam Gadahn. But does that affect people named Adam Gaughn? Is that an "alternate spelling" of the former's name? Perhaps it is -- we'll never know. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 14, 2007 11:00:22 GMT -5
Think this list is too large?
Fine. Ease up the PC condemnation of profiling by law enforcement agencies and I'll bet we could get a smaller, more targeted, more accurate list.
But since that's not allowed, we have to consider all the people who share a name, whether the name is of a foreign national with ties to a terrorist organization or of a U.S. Senator. Same reason we have to search grandmothers in airports and the security lines are so long.
Can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 14, 2007 11:52:16 GMT -5
Think this list is too large? Fine. Ease up the PC condemnation of profiling by law enforcement agencies and I'll bet we could get a smaller, more targeted, more accurate list. But since that's not allowed, we have to consider all the people who share a name, whether the name is of a foreign national with ties to a terrorist organization or of a U.S. Senator. Same reason we have to search grandmothers in airports and the security lines are so long. Can't have it both ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making us safer. Simple measures that prevent hijacking, such as reinforcing cockpit doors and increasing the number of air marshals, are great, IMO. However, when we have a system that (allegedly) effectively screens passengers and is so thorough that you and I have to wait in those long lines at the aiport, why do we need a no-fly list? And if you don't think the security system we have in place is good enough, then why are we spending billions of dollars on it anyway? Peace of mind? EDIT: Besides, how would "easing up the condemnation of profiling by law enforcement" achieve anything with regard to the no-fly list? Would we focus on only Muslims named Adam Gadahn? If easyed is correct that many of the people on this list are foreign (and many probably have Arab names), doesn't the no-fly list already achieve results similar to profiling? |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 14, 2007 15:57:37 GMT -5
My views only.
"There's a reason the FBI has a '10 Most Wanted' list, right? We need to focus the government's efforts on the greatest threats. When the watch list grows to this level, it's useless as an anti-terror tool," Sparapani said."
My problem exists with this paragraph. The 10 Most Wanted list is a straw man - it's focusing efforts on master criminals that are tough to catch. If Bob robbed a bank tomorrow, would it cause you to be concerned about the safety of the banking system?
What if Bob robbed ten banks in the area over a month? Are you going to withdraw your money?
What if Bob detonated himself in a Metro train waiting in Farragut West station? Would you get on Metro the next day?
It won't be front-page news if a member of the FBI 10 most wanted list commits a crime tomorrow. It will be front-page news if some shmoe that no one has heard of bombs a courthouse.
And organizing a terrorist event does not require many people - at a minimum, one person can build a bomb, carry a bomb, and detonate a bomb. One person can also take over an airplane and perpetuate another 9/11. Their chances of success are not high, but it's possible. The "masterminds" idea doesn't fully work here.
So, why is there a watch list in addition to security screening at airports? Because, given civil liberties concerns, you can't focus on Muslims or people with Arabic names or people born and raised in the Middle East. But you *can* share intelligence (the FBI might be aware that Bob is using a French passport #000000ABCDE and get TSA to intercept him at immigration or the next time he tries to fly) and legitimately focus on people with a rationale that won't get you sued. Or, you force terrorists to spend more time and money to get bogus IDs, potentially giving you a better chance to catch them.
Can it be pared down? Probably. Can the FBI get it down significantly? Maybe (but remember - focusing on that means less time spent on fighting terrorism and on doing other FBI tasks). Does it cause an inconvenience if your name is similar to one on the no-fly list? Yes. Is the inconvenience worth it? I can't answer that one - it's a question of how dangerous you feel the terrorist threat is.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 14, 2007 16:37:17 GMT -5
My views only. "There's a reason the FBI has a '10 Most Wanted' list, right? We need to focus the government's efforts on the greatest threats. When the watch list grows to this level, it's useless as an anti-terror tool," Sparapani said." My problem exists with this paragraph. The 10 Most Wanted list is a straw man - it's focusing efforts on master criminals that are tough to catch. If Bob robbed a bank tomorrow, would it cause you to be concerned about the safety of the banking system? What if Bob robbed ten banks in the area over a month? Are you going to withdraw your money? What if Bob detonated himself in a Metro train waiting in Farragut West station? Would you get on Metro the next day? It won't be front-page news if a member of the FBI 10 most wanted list commits a crime tomorrow. It will be front-page news if some shmoe that no one has heard of bombs a courthouse. And organizing a terrorist event does not require many people - at a minimum, one person can build a bomb, carry a bomb, and detonate a bomb. One person can also take over an airplane and perpetuate another 9/11. Their chances of success are not high, but it's possible. The "masterminds" idea doesn't fully work here. So, why is there a watch list in addition to security screening at airports? Because, given civil liberties concerns, you can't focus on Muslims or people with Arabic names or people born and raised in the Middle East. But you *can* share intelligence (the FBI might be aware that Bob is using a French passport #000000ABCDE and get TSA to intercept him at immigration or the next time he tries to fly) and legitimately focus on people with a rationale that won't get you sued. Or, you force terrorists to spend more time and money to get bogus IDs, potentially giving you a better chance to catch them. Can it be pared down? Probably. Can the FBI get it down significantly? Maybe (but remember - focusing on that means less time spent on fighting terrorism and on doing other FBI tasks). Does it cause an inconvenience if your name is similar to one on the no-fly list? Yes. Is the inconvenience worth it? I can't answer that one - it's a question of how dangerous you feel the terrorist threat is. Not sure what your argument is. What is the "masterminds" idea and why is it relevant to this discussion? Who is Bob? Is he a guy on the 10 Most Wanted List? What does the 10 Most Wanted List have to do with airport security? The 10 most wanted list is posted publicly so that citizens can aid law enforcement in bringing individuals who have committed federal crimes to justice. The no-fly list, on the other hand, is secret. We don't know who is on it. We don't know exactly why they're on it, although we can assume the reasons are connected to terrorism or hijacking. But it may (or may not) affect people who have no criminal record. If someone with your name is on it (which appears to be an increasing possibility), you won't know until you get to the ticket counter. And I'm pretty sure that people still ride the trains with great frequency in London and Madrid. I fly on airplanes on a pretty regular basis. I flew in and out of DCA as soon as service resumed -- even though I had to sit down for the first/last 30 minutes of the flight (a rule that quietly disappeared). I also have an HSBC bank account, even though terrorists blew up the branch in Istanbul. Besides, why does it matter to you if people don't ride the trains the day following a terrorist attack on a train? Are you more concerned with the public's complacency or the public's safety? Re: racial/ethnic profiling "fixing" the problem, see my edited comments above. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 14, 2007 20:01:23 GMT -5
(my views only)
Good points.
1. Really important one. I'm focusing on the public's view of the situation and what the public will accept. Patting everyone down before they enter a mall may make people marginally safer, but we won't stand for it. Everything should be seen in this context.
I also believe that the public will have the wisdom of crowds and will make what they consider an acceptable tradeoff between security and personal liberty.
2. The "masterminds" idea is the ACLU's comment that you should spend all of your time on the top ten-twenty criminals and ignore everybody else. If the government focuses solely on the leadership structure of Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Jemmah Islamiyah, they will miss lots of cells that can still kill a lot of people and cause terror. At a minor level, even one person can cause terror (the terrorist Bob of my example). One criminal can rob a bank or conduct a crime spree, but people won't be deathly afraid the way they would be after a terrorist attack.
3. Profiling. Israel interviews everyone at Ben Gurion (the main international airport). If you are Palestinian, Arab, and/or Muslim, you get more questions and are more likely to be searched much more thoroughly.
The US can not and should not give people a more thorough search just because they're Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim - that violates the Constitution because it's too broad. But if someone has a specific name, that satisfies the Constitution. Yes, people with Arabic names have a better shot at having their names confused than those with Anglo names. But if Ahmed Faisal isn't on the list and Brian Smith is, then Mr. Faisal should have an easier time clearing security than Mr. Smith.
Consider it similar to a police APB looking for a black Honda associated with a robbery. Police may pull over little old grandmas in black Hondas. But they won't just pull over anyone who "looks suspicious".
4. One more on the public's complacency. Many commenters on the ABC blog are positive that the reason the list is so big is because Bush wants a police state. I doubt that's it.
What I think the real problem is is that taking names off the list is, for the FBI, dangerous. Imagine a terrorist attack. Imagine three days after the terrorist attack, CNN finds out that the terrorist who committed the attack was removed from the no-fly list. That becomes a continuous scroll, and people assume that the FBI just screwed up again. From a bureaucratic CYA perspective, taking names off the list is much more dangerous than keeping a bigger one.
This is obviously a bad thing. But it does speak to the massive public fear (and interest) in domestic terrorism. And that's important for establishing priorities.
5. "Sources and methods". Osama bin Laden is on the watch list for obvious reasons. Criminals are on the Top Ten Most Wanted List for publicly known offenses. I would wager that people are on the watch list despite things they haven't done yet.
The best examples are the JFK and Fort Dix plots. Let's say that one of those plotters was placed on that list during the investigation. And let's say he and his friends were suddenly listed on the watch list one day.
If you publicly released the watch list, I guarantee you that terrorists would scrutinize each iteration to find out which names were new. And if six new names were on it, and the only time that they were mentioned is in a jihadi forum that Al Qaeda thought was secure, then they might stop using the forum.
6. So what can we do? I'd recommend keeping the watch list secret for the reason above. I'd establish a process (that probably could be initiated by direct contact with the FBI or through one's delegate/representative or Senator) to investigate whether you or a family member is on the watch list after being denied boarding or subjected to intense questioning. And I'd recommend that the FBI be required to report to a Congressional committee twice a year on the names and (in generic terms) where names were added from and (especially) how many names were deleted.
I think that the idea of a list is valuable. The recommended items might make it more responsive to the American people rather than an insatiable blob.
|
|
