Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Are You On the Terror Watch List? Good Luck Getting Off It

By Ivan Eland, Consortium News. Posted July 24, 2008.


The TSA's "no fly" terrorism watch list contains between 400,000 and 1,000,000 names. If you're on the list by mistake, good luck getting off of it.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Ivan Eland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

After having begun a series of investigative stories criticizing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in May 2008, CNN reporter Drew Griffin reports being placed with more than a million other names on TSA's swollen terrorism watch list.

Although TSA insists Griffin's name is not on the list and pooh-poohs any possibility of retaliation for Griffin's negative reporting, the reporter has been hassled by various airlines on 11 flights since May. The airlines insist that Griffin's name is on the list.

Congress has asked TSA to look into the tribulations of this prominent passenger.

In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, probably responding to the controversy over Griffin, Leonard Boyle, the director of the Terrorist Screening Center, defended the watch list, claiming that because terrorists have multiple aliases, the names on the list boiled down to only about 400,000 actual people.

If there are 400,000 terrorists lying in wait to attack the United States, we are all in trouble.

But wait a minute. There has been no major terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 -- almost seven years ago. Where are all these nefarious evildoers?

Boyle says 95 percent of these people are not American citizens or legal residents and the vast majority aren't even in the United States. He rather sheepishly defends the size of the list by writing, "Its size corresponds to the threat. It's a big world."

That brings up a very important issue. The U.S. government regularly tries to police the world and combat threats to other nations -- in the process, usually generating more enemies.

Examining the 44 organizations on the State Department's highly politicized list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), one finds that only a very few currently focus their efforts on U.S. targets. And the U.S. government has even flirted with one anti-Iranian group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which was put on the FTO list long ago.

Similarly, the State Department's list of five state sponsors of terrorism has included Cuba and North Korea -- neither of which has actively participated in terrorist attacks in decades. These two countries continued to be on the list for other reasons -- namely U.S. government aversion to them.

On its Web site, the State Department even admits that, "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987."

The Web site also contains an implicit admission that keeping selected countries on the state sponsors list can reap ulterior political benefits for the United States. The Web site notes that under the umbrella of the Six-Party Talks, the United States intends to remove North Korea from the list as that nation takes actions toward getting rid of its nuclear weapons program.

Even the remaining three nations on the list that do sponsor terrorism -- Syria, Iran and Sudan -- don't support groups that focus their attacks on the U.S. Thus, the humongous terrorist watch list for airline travel and the excessively large FTO and state sponsors lists are a few more examples of the United States taking on other nations' security burdens.

Trying to be the "big man on (the world) campus," however, comes at a horrendous cost to American freedom at home.

The terrorist watch list is downright unconstitutional. Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, no warrants shall be issued unless there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

If the government has such probable cause that a passenger is conspiring to commit a terrorist act on an airplane, it should not hassle that person at the airport when trying to fly or ban him or her from flying; it should arrest them.

But of course the government does not have the evidence to do that for the vast majority of the 400,000 people on the watch list.

And it's apparently not easy to get yourself off the list once you are on it. Although Boyle claims that the TSA constantly scrubs the list for possible mistaken identities of people who have frequent "encounters" with the list, even if they don't file a complaint, Griffin uncovered an innocent passenger with a common name -- James Robinson -- who has complained endlessly and has received no resolution of his case.

Senator Edward Kennedy -- also with a common name -- experienced endless hassles and red tape trying to get his name off the list. If such a well-known figure has such problems, the average misidentified traveler is in big trouble.

And as the economists would say, what about opportunity cost to real security?

The U.S. government should spend the time it devotes to scrutinizing 400,000 people on the watch list, and the vast majority of the 44 FTOs and all of the five countries who don't sponsor anti-U.S. terrorism, on the again rising principal threat from Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and their tens of hard-core al-Qaeda followers operating out of Pakistan.

The American public would be much safer. As the famous Prussian military ruler Fredrick the Great (and closet economist) said, "To defend everything is to defend nothing."

Moreover, under current government policy, we have neither liberty nor security.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: fear, airlines, terrorism, no fly lists, tsa, paranoia

Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What to expect?
Posted by: reinaldok on Jul 24, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I go to check in at the sirport, I always seem to have that nervous feeling that I will be rejected by the TSA. Have I been placed on one of the famous terrorist lists? Did some bottom ranked official read one of my tepid blogs? Did someone not like my op-ed piece in the local newpaper? Maybe I made a comment at a cocktail lounge. Or is it just that my name is similar to another supposedly suspicious person. Many of us presume that Obama and a new crew will take office next January. Will they change things and end all these NAZI tactics? I have asked Obama's people about this and their double speak has been thundering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What to expect? Posted by: ellie
» RE: What to expect? Posted by: leafsong1
Wasn't Ted Kennedy on a list in 2004?
Posted by: bdcroan on Jul 24, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ted was able to get off because he had connections, but that even took several weeks. Was he placed on the list because he is a political enemy of the whitehouse?
For cbs news report on kennedy:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2004/04/06/terror/main610466.shtml

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 24, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its all about "who" you know. thats what this country is all about. What a joke. The US is taking this terrorist crap WAY too seriously.

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the low two digits to 400,000 in seven years
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 24, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and 20,000 of them US citizens. The GWOT seems to be hatching a lot of terrorists, doesn't it? Obviously, if we had 20,000 terrorists in the US, we would have some terrorism to go along with it. Of course, we employ about a million professional terrorists in our military, but they don't count. 20,000 sounds like a familiar number. Isn't that the capacity of the domestic prison camps Halliburton built for the US government in the desert?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some people on the list: Posted by: fanny666
Consequences, plural
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jul 24, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't fly anywhere, anyway. So I couldn't care less about being hassled at the airport if I am on the list. BUT... I bet that being hassled at the airport isn't the only consequence of being on the list. Maybe your emails and phone calls are tapped if you are on the list. (Okay, ALL of us are getting our emails and phone-calls tapped, anyway.) Maybe the government is watching you whenever you step outside your house, or while you are in your house. Maybe those on the list will be the first of us to be rounded up when martial law is declared. I am sure there is MUCH more to all of this than even I can conceive of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Consequences, plural Posted by: JNGII
ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 24, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don,t forget that there were lists in Nazi Germany and every dictatorship since then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was a kid...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 24, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were told by our "teachers" that those poor folk in the Soviet Union had to live in fear of thought police, of being put on lists, of being heard saying anything critical about their government, of being disappeared and rotting in torturous prison gulags for years without even being charged or having access to counsel and such. It would seem that we have become what we were told was so bad about them and how they treated their own people... but of course, in OUR case this is for our own GOOD... for our "safety".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

american gestapo
Posted by: sirios on Jul 24, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would'nt be surprised if everybody who posts comments on alternet is one step away from landing on this list.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now Alternet workers will be on the list
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jul 24, 2008 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Terror Watch Lists, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) (by E.A.Blayre III, who is on the list) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Been there since October of last year...
Posted by: hiryuu75 on Jul 24, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fly semi-frequently for work (as a chemical engineer), and it's occasionally international. From one week to the next, I went from being able to breeze through airports to having to check in with a gate agent every single time, with procedures that often include a long wait and at least one phone call. My name is ridiculously common and very ordinary, I'm a bog-standard caucasian male, and I have no criminal record of any kind.

The oh-so-helpful TSA provides a form for completion and submission in case of presumed-erroneous presence of a person's name on the list. After waiting weeks for a response, what I received back was a form letter that was as vague and non-committal as they come (aside from the loathsomely-thick nationalistic phrasing), and which to all intents and purposes basically stated that I "may continue to experience" the same BS I've faced for these months.

Further attempts on my part to get off the list have met with stonewalling or dead-ends. I'm convinced I'll be on it until I die or until we have some serious governmental overhaul. One can hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Think We should Have A..
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 24, 2008 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mid-Level designation for , oh, I don't know, U.S. Citizens? Only with this one, you can fly if you agree to be shackled. No, that wouldn't work. I know, let's shackle everybody, and retrain excess flight crew to be ground crew. Those bitches don't like waiting on us, anyhow. Airlines ALL want to treat us like El Al does, but they don't want to spend the money. It's like some dumb game show, treat 'em ALL like terrorists, put the whiners in a room with a uniform with an attitude, then all the winners get to FLY, yay!. Spare me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ross Wolf
Posted by: Ross Wolf on Jul 24, 2008 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see below excerpts from a 2008 article that address how broadly TSA might use a "low level of Probable Cause" to restrict U.S. Citizens traveling in their own country on domestic flights and perhaps later, other forms of transportation controlled by Home Land Security.

Immediately following are excerpts from a article found at:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/06/18470366.php

"Subsequently in 2008, under the Federal Government’s “Secure Flight Program” the Government will begin not allowing U.S. Citizens on domestic flights until the government has prescreened a passenger’s information against “government Watch Lists.” On its face—that sounds great. Everyone wants safe air travel. The Government states, “Watch Lists” will be used to identify individuals who “may pose” a known or suspected threat to aviation or national security. But what does that mean? “May pose a suspected threat—to national security? U.S. Government officials have called protesters potential terrorists and a threat to national security. The words “May pose a suspected threat…” are so vague one can’t help wonder if that might” apply to individuals wanting to fly to an anti-war or environmental protest. You can read about the Government “Watch Lists” in the “Secure Flight Program” at:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm

"Will S.1959 Be Used to Restrict U.S. Citizens Traveling in Their Own Country?

Note: S.1059 is pending in the U.S. Senate.

"Government officials have called lawful protesters potential terrorists and a threat to national security. Will protestors be able to fly after the Senate passes S.1959? "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not trying hard enough
Posted by: DanYHKim on Jul 24, 2008 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that I really need the extra hassle, but I had commented previously on my own suspicious activities. It's been almost a year, and I still get through the airport without trouble.

I can only figure that it's racism. The assumption is that Asians are naturally deferential and compliant, and so are not potential Enemies of the State.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm not trying hard enough Posted by: ranchero42
Internet Watch List???
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jul 25, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no doubt there is also a blogger Watch list. I have been in th emiddle of blogging on this site & Truthdig and have been mysteriously 'disconnected'. I will get the 'local connection' lost after I have hit 'post'. The must disturbing thing is that I am on High Speed cable internet - and all my lights are on the box!
This appears to happen while I am still typing my comments. I have no doubt that Big Brother is watching- but how closely it individuals before they can even 'send' their thoughts? I find this most often happens while bitching about this admin and interstingly enough Religious Christian Fanatics/extremeist in this country, like Hagee!
Your are not Paranoid if they are truly out to get you- or at least shut you Up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

seetheball
Posted by: seetheball on Jul 25, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On 9/11, before the second plane hit, my brother called family and friends in NYC to warn them, "We are under terrorist attack!" Then he hopped on his rig and led his men down to Box 8087, the WTC. As a captain in the FDNY, he died with two civilians when WTC 1 collapsed. But not before securing the safety of his men, that of another engine company and the civilians they saved. He also alerted another company to the collapse of WTC 2 and contributed to their survival and the civilian they saved.

He wasn't concerned about whether those who struck were "nefarious evildoers" or not. He immediatly understood what the threat was and what was required in response. He stayed true to that even onto giving his life.

We are not the enemy. We are not the bad guys. "Big brother" is a boogey man, conjured up academics, politicians and others who have a vested interest in the myth's survival. It's called fear mongering. "1984" is a book; a novel. It's revelance, always nebulous, has disappeared.

Lincoln's words about the only enemy we need fear is from our own shores was great for 150 years; 9/11 obviously rendered obsolete. "Obviously" being the key word here.

The threat to our freedoms is from "tens" of followers of Al Qaeda who want you, me, your children, your parents, your dog, your parakeet, your neighbors, the guy who sold you your bagel this morning, and every other American or anybody associated with them, dead.

Here are the two wisest things I have heard on 9/11 and our security threat: from a 16 yr old girl at ground zero, visiting from Oregon: "Not until then did I realize how much they hated us and wanted us dead."

And, from a 19 yr old high school drop out: "How do you plan flying airplanes into buildings?"

That's the threat today, not our government. Grown ups know that. It is nice for Iavn Eland to mock the threats posed by Islamic fuindamentalists and the meaning of 9/11; it supports his view that it is not a real threat. The facts, that being 9/11, speak differently.

It was eight years between the first bombing of the WTC and 9/11. People then mocked the idea of searching for "nefarious evildoers" then, too. They were wrong.

It's great fun to discard the deaths of thousands of innocents by referring to those who indiscriminatly murdered thousands mockingly as "evildoers" but what were they? Not so bad doers? Every one of your readers whouldn't hesitate an eyeblink to refer to Bush or Cheney as "evil" but people who hijack jetliners and fly them into buildings? Heck, they're not American, they're not Western, they're not white, they're not Judeo-Christian; and they attacked us! They must, somehow, be innocent.

Here's what two firemen who were there reported: there were two people lying in the lobby of WTC 1. The man was already dead, burned to death. There was a woman lying beside him. "She was naked; her skin was burned off. Her eyes and throat were sealed shut. She tried to speak. She perished within two minutes."

Another said: "They were falling out of the sky and exploding."

But that's nothing to take seriously. So much more fun, despite the truth that hit us all in the face, 9/11, to hold onto our precious dogma. To pretend that all we have to do to secure our freedoms is to rail against false enemies who are not hitting back; that takes no courage and no sacrifice.

Recently, returning from Italy, I was delayed in reentering the country. My passport "came up weird" I was told. There was some sort of match to somebody suspicious somewhere. I thought, now this is a great irony. The officers could not have been more polite. After about an hour the issue was resolved, my passport pleasantly returned and I was on my way.

The horror.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]