30,000 People Mistakenly Put on Terrorist Watch List

This is incredible:

Nearly 30,000 airline passengers discovered in the past year that they were mistakenly placed on federal "terrorist" watch lists, a transportation security official said Tuesday.

When are we finally going to admit that the DHS is incompetent at this?

EDITED TO ADD (12/7): At least they weren't kidnapped and imprisoned for five months, and "shackled, beaten, photographed nude and injected with drugs by interrogators."

Posted on December 7, 2005 at 10:26 AM • 59 Comments

Comments

StephenDecember 7, 2005 10:45 AM

Admitting incompetency? I think the administration accidentally redacted that chapter from their procedures manual before making copies.

Matti KinnunenDecember 7, 2005 10:52 AM

I do not see any real mistake before those 30000 will be spirited away to Afganistan and interrogated with normal CIA-methods. Having them on a list is just a small, inevitable mistake, which, according to Dr. Rise, happen and will happen.

Glauber RibeiroDecember 7, 2005 10:56 AM

The inmates are ruling the asylum. Kafka would have been proud: 'That doesn't mean their names are erased from the watch list. In fact, travelers who go through the paperwork are told, Kennedy said, that "it will not quote 'remove' you from the list because the person we're still looking for is out there."'

Cat's KennedyDecember 7, 2005 11:08 AM

quote: "Names on the "no-fly" list, however, are unilaterally barred from flying. The office said it hasn't been informed of any cases where people have disputed placement on the no-fly list."

Can somebody post a link refuting that?

Also, I think there's a typo in the the last sentence (should be "at this", not "that this" perhaps?)

Chris SannerDecember 7, 2005 11:20 AM

"A total of about 60 applicants had to be denied, as security officials couldn't determine that the applicants weren't actually the same as those named on the list, Kennedy said."
My question - what happened to those 60 people?
if you don't know who you're watching, how can a list of people you might be watching be of any use at all?

TimDecember 7, 2005 11:23 AM

So what good is this "no fly" list? Why should we care who flies?

If we are looking for terrorists, waiting for them to fly (in order to catch them) is stupid. If we want to capture bad guys, we should develop a bureau of investigation at the federal level to find these people; and, to help analyse intelligence coming from outside the US, we should have some centralized intelligence agency or department.

The sooner those in charge and the general publice realize the wastefullness of wanting to know who is flying, the sooner we can concentrate our money and resources on true security threats. Like maybe we could start scanning ALL of the packages going into the belly of the plane for explosives.

Mike SherwoodDecember 7, 2005 11:25 AM

Sometimes, I have to wonder if the point of these exercises is to fail. After all, there's a lot of money pushing for a national ID. A unique identifier that could be used across all databases to track individual and group patterns is the holy grail of information collection. The privacy concerns are easy to drown out if you can claim that you're doing everything you can, but it's still not good enough.

DHS isn't special. Everyone is incompetant at dealing with these kinds of issues. I deal with marketing databases at work and am constantly surprised to see how primitive all of the products are for performing a function all large companies do. The good side is that if we screw up, the impact is limited to advertising. Unfortunately, these people have the same problems, but can adversely impact people more seriously.

There was an article a year or two back about everyone named David Nelson being stopped because there was a David Nelson somewhere who allegedly did something. I forwarded that to a guy I worked with who had that name and was going on vacation and sure enough, he got stopped on both legs of his trip.

I doubt there's going to be a way to make this situation any better that doesn't have an adverse effect on privacy. After all, in order for someone to know you're not the terrorist David Nelson, they have to be able to confirm which David Nelson you are, which means having a database of everyone, including a lot of historical information from every source imaginable.

robber_baronDecember 7, 2005 11:26 AM

Cat's Kennedy:

That may actually be true. Accourding to http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/... most people are detained and harrassed to the point of missing flights, but only a few names are on the official no-fly list.

From the article:
"Some of those who have been stopped for special scrutiny by TSA agents in recent months have been specifically told that their names were “on a list.��? Last spring, Virgine Lawinger, a 74-year-old nun and a member of Peace Action, was stopped at the Milwaukee airport along with some 20 other members of the group on their way to Washington to lobby the Wisconsin congressional delegation against military aid to Colombia. She says they were told at the time by local sheriff’s deputies and Midwest Express ticketing personnel that one or several of them were “on a list,��? and that the TSA had instructed airport security to keep the group off the plane.

Lawinger, with the help of the local ACLU, filed a Freedom of Information request with the TSA in early October, seeking to learn why she had been barred from her flight. A month later, word came back that the TSA had a file on her, though all the pages were withheld except for a copy of a news clipping from the local paper reporting on her experience at the airport. It isn’t known whether the other information in Lawinger’s TSA file contains information predating the airport incident."

The problem may be with proving one is actually on the no-fly list so that one may actually formally complain about being on the list. If you can't prove you are on the list, then I imagine no court would hear your case.

radiantmatrixDecember 7, 2005 11:46 AM

@Tim:

"If we want to capture bad guys, we should develop a bureau of investigation at the federal level to find these people"

I like your proposal for a Federal Bureau of Investigation. We might call it the FBI for short.

This is exactly the problem: we have spent money on creating new encumberances and half-baked exclusion lists instead of putting it into improving the performance of the agencies that were already tasked with this: FBI, CIA, and NSA. The *idea* of the DHS is great, an overarching agency designed to improve communication between the various agencies tasked with protecting national security, but the implementation is poor.

These watchlists and no-fly lists will have as much success preventing a terrorist attack as pure-blacklist filters have at preventing UCE.

MitchDecember 7, 2005 11:51 AM

Is it possible that the actual intention of these systems is to make life awkward for those who express political dissent? It seems like the only explanation for having a file on a nun...

I'm also intrigued by the remaining 60. If they are wanted or suspected of something, presumably their applications would get forwarded to the relevant law enforcement authority, so that the person can be investigated thoroughly. If this doesn't happen, it's yet another example of government being incapable of "joined up" thinking, and if it does happen, and these 60 are still unable to fly, then I pity them for being stuck in a Kafka-esque screening system without knowing why...

Roy OwensDecember 7, 2005 12:08 PM

(sarcasm)
That does it! I'm changing my name to Cheney Rove Rumsfeld Bush.
(/sarcasm)

Seriously, if the government wants to catch terrorists, the Iraq war proved the one thing that works (and proved, no surprise, that torture continues to fail).

Simply put a king's ransom as a price on their heads -- a fortune for squealing. Keep upping the price, and somebody will shrug off his reward in paradise for a fortune in this world. Cynical? Yes. Someone once said everyone has his price.

When we are spending billions looking everywhere the terrorists aren't, why not appeal to the greed of people who know where the terrorists are?

MitchDecember 7, 2005 12:23 PM

@Roy,

The "reward" option doesn't work.

You are right that everyone has his price. The problem is, you don't know if that is the price to shop a real terrorist, or to shop someone innocent.

Hey, I don't care which one I report to the authorities... as long as I get my $1000.

And the authorities around the world are renowned for their ability to torture confessions out of innocent people.

Sorry, but I don't think your system would work - it would cost a lot, and find fewer terrorists than it would find innocents...

Patrick FarrellDecember 7, 2005 12:56 PM

I am routinely stopped whenever I travel, now. It has happened 3 times in the past year. Each time I check in, there is quiet panic behind the airline desk as security is quietly called. Every time, clerks eventually decide I am ok to travel. I have asked why I was stopped and am told each time, "You have a social sec. number or name that is similar to someone on the terrorist watch list." I ask, how do I get on a whitelist that says I am ok or to whom can I complain? The first two times, I was told there are no complaints taken or anyone I could contact. That non-accountability scares me more than anything. The most recent time, the airline clerk told me that I can file with the TSA, but it won't change any future action. I am forced to endure this every time I wish to fly. Had I confidence in the current security systems, this state would be acceptable. Instead, the TSA seems more concerned with creating the illusion of security than a flexible secure framework. The last time I flew, the clerk's final comment was, "This is happening more and more every day." A system based on a list of possible suspects, from which no names are ever removed, will have to implode under its own weight.

Cat's KennedyDecember 7, 2005 12:57 PM

@Roy,

I think Osama Bin Laden, a pretty compelling counterpoint. Despite a big bounty he still remains at large. Same thing with many of his 'henchmen'.

SwashbucklingCowboyDecember 7, 2005 12:59 PM

Looks like they've correct an important mistake in the article:

About 30,000 airline passengers have discovered since last November that their names were mistakenly matched with those appearing on federal watch lists, a transportation security official said Tuesday.


"Matched" is much different from "added."

AnonymousDecember 7, 2005 1:07 PM

Collecting a bounty isn't worth much if you won't live long enough to spend it.

OogDecember 7, 2005 3:21 PM

30,000 out of how many people who fly through or live in the USA? Sounds pretty small to me.

Even assuming the smaller number of US population (295million), 30,000 is a very small number.

That's four 9's accuracy! Pretty good to me.

Of course, if you measure it the other way, as a fraction of the list that is wrong, it's probably a different story. :)

AlanDecember 7, 2005 4:07 PM

Apparently things are worse if you are bipolar. Feel more secure now?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/...

"US air marshals yesterday shot and killed a passenger who claimed to be carrying a bomb in a bag, as he run down a mobile jet bridge from a plane just after it landed at Miami International airport....Mary Gardner, another passenger on the Boeing 757 aircraft, told a Miami TV station that the man ran down the aisle from the rear of the plane. "He was frantic, his arms flailing in the air," she said. A woman followed, shouting, "My husband! My husband!," Ms Gardner said....But as more details emerged, it seemed increasingly likely that the whole episode was a tragic accident. According to Ms Gardner the woman was shouting that that her husband suffered from bipolar (manic depressive) disorder and had not taken his medication...."

Ari HeikkinenDecember 7, 2005 4:19 PM

It's pretty much obvious that anything will pass in the US simply by using counterterrorism as an excuse.

Thomas SprinkmeierDecember 7, 2005 5:23 PM

@Stephen,

"""Admitting incompetency? I think the administration accidentally redacted that chapter from their procedures manual before making copies."""

No problem. You can still see the redacted text, just look at the file in a binary editor.

LongwalkerDecember 7, 2005 5:27 PM

I have a bridge to sell anyone who believes that so many anti-war activists, environmentalists, leftists, anti-globalization activists, whistleblowers, and other dissidents wind up on the no-fly list 'by mistake.' It's pretty clear that the TSA and DHS are using their watch lists to harass and intimidate people who make too much anti-government noise.

Gerd RauschDecember 7, 2005 5:54 PM

@Ari Heikkinen

"It's pretty much obvious that anything will pass
in the US simply by using counterterrorism as an excuse."

How about "Getting rid of Bush and his cronies".
They seem to be terrorizing large parts of the population.
Following your theory, that argument should fly ;-)

Cat's KennedyDecember 7, 2005 6:14 PM

Commenting further on the incident today where US Air Marshals killed a US citizen:

Various news outlets are publishing the quote:
"The incident marks the first time a passenger has been killed by marshals since the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US." from DHS spokesman Brian Doyle.

The statement seems to imply that there was a precedent for the killing set on or around 9/11, but this is the first time an Air Marshall has killed a U.S. citizen in a long time -- if ever.

In my cursory research I can't find a single other case -- certainly not a case around 9/11.

Roy OwensDecember 7, 2005 6:24 PM

@Mitch

I thought through what you said, and you're right, bounties aren't a good idea. The whole idea merely introduces a new detection problem. Thanks for the insight.

DylanDecember 7, 2005 7:36 PM

@Mitch and @Roy
Bounties are the wrong application of the right idea.

The intelligence that is gathered from local sources is extremely valuable. Quality is always a problem, but intelligence that is volunteered (because the reward is an improvement in the quality of life of the informer) is generally better quality than intelligence that is bought.

Unfortunately, the leverage that terrorism has is that it acts to make quality of life appear worse for the informer who talks.

JilaraDecember 7, 2005 8:39 PM

I would like to see a placard placed near the airport checkin desk stating: "If you believe you have been wrongly placed on a list limiting your travel, it can be appealed by contacting (list agency contact here) and filing Form XX for a review of your case." Then there would be accountability and a review procedure that people could point at if they wanted to claim no one had disputed their status.

PaulDecember 7, 2005 9:29 PM

At least they weren't shot five times in the head while trying to get to work on the Underground.

C. Sebastian MongooseDecember 8, 2005 5:46 AM

Sorry for the long post, but this hits close to home.

I have been the poster boy for 'special screening' for the last 2 1/2 years, having been subject to it for over 60 international flights. Every time. Every airport.

Kiosk check-ins, which many airports make you attempt first, are always met with instructions to attend the counter to check in. Once almost completed the check-in, with my bags tagged, weighed, and sitting on the conveyor, I am informed I have been randomly chosen for special screening.

At this time, I then wait for the security staff, who takes my bags off to the side, where all my luggage is first x-rayed, then searched. During this process, at least one of the security staff stays by my side, while at least 2 more perform the search. Usually takes 20 to 30 minutes until I go back to the counter, security staff in tow, until my bags get on the conveyor. (At most airports, at least one security staff who is NOT involved in searching you or your bags must be at your side from the start, until the bags have finally been checked in.)

Now it's off to the security checkpoint. The four S's on my ticket tell the staff there to pull me aside for more screening, and another search of myself and my carry-on luggage. These guys in my experience always polite and efficient - but it still takes time to search my bag, swab my electronics and shoes, etc., and they have to wait for me to re-pack my belongings before I leave their corral.

Not done yet - many airports like Heathrow have you check-in before you enter the departure gate lounge. A glance at the ticket, and a member of staff pulls you aside to wait for another security staff to escort me into the lounge, to a cordoned off waiting area. Here they, you guessed it, search me and my luggage again. Yet a third round of swabs, yet a third pat-down and of course a third careful reloading of my carry on articles.

Seldom during the process do I not see at least one, and usually more of the security staff I now have a nodding relationship with. We usually exchange resigned smiles. I've taken to timing the total man hours the security staff spend either searching or accompanying me, and it works out to about 4 to 5 man hours, per flight. PER FLIGHT! Call that 6 to 8 man weeks for security staff. Just for me.

And why exactly do you think this ex-pat Canadian living in the UK, and who travels extensively for business, rates such treatment?

I am in the business of selling medical grade cannabis seeds, and actively support legalization for medical uses. (Keep in mind sale of cannabis seeds is legal in the UK, which is where I make my home, and simple possession is also decriminalized) Apparently legalizing cannabis for medical reasons == terrorism.

Now, I can see where some governments might disagree with the premise for my business, but how the heck does putting me through a full drill 2 or 3 times every single flight make flying safer?

There is a bright side - I wouldn't even mind if it wasn't for what I see as a huge waste of security resources. For you see, by the time I board, I'm usually one of the last passengers on, so there is little wait until take off. Upon landing, my special attention luggage usually has gone on almost last, so therefore comes off first onto the luggage carousel, allowing me to beat the rush. :)

But EVERY frickin' time? C'mon.

Mikenow drivesDecember 8, 2005 7:46 AM

I was a road warrior for 20 years, Took 3 of 4 flights a week. My name was added to the "delay" list. Many check in agents were symathetic. They told me it was my last name. Actually it became a joke. I told them I was on the "bad persons" list as soon as I went to the counter. It just became such a hassle, not be able to get boarding passes in advance, and always getting at least stopped for a cursory check. The process meant I had to be at the airport 3 hours before flying. Here's how I solved it. I stopped flying. As far as getting your name removed from the list - forget it. The process in onerous. Many other road warriors went through it and told me it made no difference at all. They never got removed. I actually gave up te corporate life and started my own small business to be close to home and eliminate travel altogether. Flying is such a hassle, I just gave up on it.

dmcDecember 8, 2005 8:42 AM

30,000 *discovered* that they were placed on this list.

How many would have discovered this, but never had occasion to find out???

Roy OwensDecember 8, 2005 8:56 AM

The wasteful 'screening' will go on forever, or at least until enough people quit flying. Then they would have to cut back 'screening' until the profitabilityn got back up.

If they tried the same 'security' at a movie theater, they'd go broke within days. Same for a bank, a supermarket, or a mall.

None of the alternatives to flying get picked on.

another_bruceDecember 8, 2005 9:43 AM

the khaled masri case suggests that we're no longer the moral light of the world. what the hell happened to us?
i'm wondering if somebody is chaffing names onto the terrorist watch list. dave nelson, an antiwar nun, a cannabis seeds salesman, even senator ted kennedy. could be somebody on the inside or the outside. with no accountability, if i control the list and i don't like you, it would amuse me to subject you to special screening. likewise, if i'm dave nelson and can't get accountable justice any other way, i might anonymously rat out random names in the phone book to swell the list to the point where it will have to be discarded.

pigletDecember 8, 2005 10:28 AM

Maybe the worst thing about those watchlist is that there are no guaranteed individual rights any more. The people who are denied boarding a plane because somebody read too much of Kafka have no legal remedy whatsoever. This is what this system has in common with any ordinary dictatorship. The difference between a justice state and a dictatorship is that in the first, those who are treated injustly have the chance to defend their rights and to restore justice. This isn't true any more in the USA. Pacifist dissidents are denied the right to free movement. People are imprisoned who have never been convicted, not even accused, of a crime. People are shipped to countries like Syria in order to be tortured. The courts are splitting hairs and allow that kind of abuse to continue. The individual just doesn't count any more. Even in this forum, somebody said "only 30000 - what do you complain about!". If it is acceptable to trample on the rights of a minority because the majority feels "more secure" that way, it is hard to see where this will ever stop.

jblDecember 8, 2005 3:42 PM

"Apparently legalizing cannabis for medical reasons == terrorism."

The claim was made that new security provisions (primarily in the USA PATRIOT act) were intended only to fight terrorism and not to pursue other criminal matters (not to mention non-criminal matters!). I never believed that for one second, and I have seen comments from justice department officials which would seem to confirm that view.

And now they want to extend or make permanent provisions of that travesty.

jammitDecember 8, 2005 6:11 PM

It seems the best way to find a terrorist is to not go looking for one. A person may want to look at this and say 30,000 out of 300million is a good hit/miss ratio and they'd be right. Another way of looking at it is to say 30,000 honest people with their rights stripped is 30,000 too many, and they'd also be right. The thing I like to look at is out of 30,000 incorrect "guesses" (my word), how many bad guys were caught? As posted earlier the math comes out to 30,000 divided by zero. The important thing is not in using a blacklist, but how to correct errors. The blacklist is incomplete. It needs a polar opposite to function.

pigletDecember 9, 2005 8:12 AM

Note that the zdnet article quotes a TSA official as its only source.

Here's an article that states that the watchlist is actually 80000 names long. There is no way to verify this but if the true figure is anywhere near this number, we can only conclude that the people responsible for that list are acting without a clue whatsoever. How many terrorists do they actually *know* of? Certainly no more than a handful. It's inconceibvable that there are 80000 *known* suspected terrorists out there. On what basis are they putting names on the list?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/
120805S.shtml

different_nameDecember 9, 2005 11:24 AM

What happens when someone on the watch list go to court and changes his/her name?

Wesley ParishDecember 10, 2005 3:13 AM

There's an Australian/New Zealand folk song that requires singing in these circumstances; sung by Fred Dagg et all as:

"When you're hunting in the mountains and your dog's put up a chase,
And a porker's coming at you and he doesn't like your face.
And you're running and he's running and he's pounding on the pace,
Well, don't worry mate, she'll be right.

She'll be right, mate, she'll be right.
Don't worry mate, she'll be right.
You can get your feed of pork when he slows down to a walk
So don't worry mate she'll be right."
[...]

And finished off in the Aussie version with a minor detail about a powder monkey in an open-cast mine missing his crimping tools:

"Shove the det in underneath,
You can crimp it with your teeth,
Don't worry, mate,
She'll be ..."

So don't worry about it. Random harrassment of innocent travellers is like crimping detonators with your teeth - perfectly safe, according to those safely on the sideline ....

Anon Y. MouseDecember 11, 2005 9:52 AM

After the bit about David Nelson, I'm surprised
people haven't yet made the obvious leap... that
terrorists should change their names to common
ones like John Doe, Joe Smith, Bob Jones, etc.
That would make short work of the terror watch
list nonsense.

S. E. C. E. T.December 30, 2005 11:23 AM

I am a security professional and now I am on this list as well. It started with getting taken out of line to now getting practically stripped searched. In Portland, I felt like a common criminal because of the way I was pulled out and told to take off clothing and turn down my pants so that the security screener could run his hand inside of my belt and waistline. I asked him if he had any jelly for the glove before he poked me and he did not laugh. I felt violated and humiliated. I have spent a lot of time on my reputation and to be randomly put on a watch list where I can not get my boarding pass anywhere but at a ticket counter has made me miss several connecting flights and valuable time wasted in airports and with business. Then to find out you can’t get off it even when you feel you don’t belong on it in the first place.

I also strongly disagree that the list is only at 30,000. I believe it is more like 100,000 or even larger and is only going to get bigger. The Patriot Act has given law enforcement and some politician’s extraordinary powers which essentially are above the law. For instance, take the liberal use of powers in wire tapping lately.

This list and any subsequent actions will only lead to bigger problems and more serious concerns as to how that information will be used against us in the future. We are becoming a society that can remove/restrict/harass/humiliate and accuse a citizen of wrongdoing without due process and the rights granted to us in the constitution. We are essentially powerless from this form of retribution because someone at a computer thinks you’re a criminal. I know, I know, it only says that we are matched to a similar profile or name, yada yada...Right, If you believe that then you are living in the dark ages. As long as we are all on the list, they will use it against us and when their powers of taking people in the dead of night and whisking American citizens off to Syria to be tortured are granted, then we are not safe being on that list. And folks, that day is coming. So I say, be watchful and mindful that they can do anything as long as they have the power to do so. And if things keep unfolding like they have, they will take all the liberty they can to inject their fears on the public and then we become enemy #1 just because we happen to be on their prime suspect list. Hey, they just developed a list so what makes any of us sure that they will not take it too far again and again and go after each of us just to calm the fears of the American Public or make another point. My point is as long as we are on the list, we are at risk of being exploited and humiliated.

I must be a threat because of perhaps what I know about Information Security and that I am paid to protect Information Assets from becoming exploited? But does the person on the other side even care who I am or what I do for a living. NO and that my friends is the problem with the Watch Lists. And this is exactly why I am concerned that I am on it in the first place without the opportunity of getting off it. If my name was really a threat, wouldn’t they be able to find the person and wouldn’t they be able to track that person down, at least eventually remove that threat from the list. Personnally. I think it is a ruse, a play on fears to allow the government to start making a file on every American just like the good ole days of Hoover. They just changed the game to include words like terrorism and fear to get more leverage than what Hoover was able to do.

So when I see the government trying to make me more secure, I am apprehensive and I shudder at the idea that they have my best intentions in mind, while all the while they are circumventing the very systems put in place to protect us and our rights.

As long as they can ride above the law, there is no law and there will be no justice. Think about it, the laws are what separates us and makes the system work. It does not work when people are able to trample on the system and do what ever they please without regard to a person's rights and due process. America is great when those principles are leading the way, not the ones based on fear and the word...TERRORISM.

two2December 30, 2005 3:10 PM

the purpose of all the nonsense is to create the illusion that A SYSTEM is in place (everyone BOW to W and Dick) to make the public more secure,at the "small" price of encroaching on its civil liberties. It also happens to underpin the Bush government's legitimacy, in light of its questionable assumption of power, and to distract the public's attention from what that gang is doing to the Country. Ask yourself this: where would that government be WITHOUT the so-called "war on terror",which just incidentally gives W the cloak of a "wartime" President? Fighting a lot of court challenges and trying to hang on without public support.

Leaping FrogJanuary 3, 2006 10:53 AM

I lost my wallet and the counter man wanted to know if the fact that I was on the Federal Watch List was any concern at SouthWest airlines. The security guys said no. It has lost much of its effectiveness if I am on it with no history of even drinking or any other bad habits. I'd laugh but it is a concern that good citizens are put on arbitrary lists controlled by elected officials who want to remain elected -- doesn't this sound, taste, and feel like watergate? The patriot act is anything but patriotic. Our boys fighting for freedom in another country -- that is patriotic. Our elected officials snubbing due process in favor of blind snooping ... that is treason.

SharonJanuary 15, 2006 11:16 PM

I have been on a terrorist watch list since at least 1998. Beginning in 1998, I was fired from every minimum wage job and denied the Ph.D. in English. Before 1998, I was never fired from any job and had taught at several universities. Until the last few years, I really had no understanding of the university system. I actually thought universities were places where you learned how to better the lot of humanity, at least that was the reason I studied at universities.
A few professors tried to warn me, but I never imagined that I would actually be barred from teaching or holding any middle class job, because of my views.
The men on my dissertation committee told me that I was overly confident and too opinionated--that women who demand the right to their own opinions end up in a place colder than Siberia--and that rebels never get what they claim they want, a teaching position. Before I was denied the Ph.D. on those grounds, I thought universities were not controlled by despotic apes on ape councils. I don't know why I thought this. Looking back, I was certainly warned enough. Apparently, I just didn't care.
Once I was ousted, I lost all respect for anyone associated with academia. There is nothing I would do differently to remain a part of the academic elite.
This bullshit about spying on Americans is the very, very tip of the iceberg. What was done to me is horrific beyond belief. I would have preferred to have been murdered outright, like Wellstone and all the murdered microbiologists.
There are so many murder victims of the Bush Junta that no one can keep track of them all. Anyone involved in uncovering the Bush crimes is in grave danger. It is all unraveling now, but I have lost eight years of my life to this crap. And we have to start reinventing the wheel yet again.
The government of any country can kill the best and buy the rest. The U.S. has been the predominate killer of the best for fifty years. The best of this country and every other was murdered by the NWO, the Bilderburgs, the CFR's, the Trilateral's, etc. Read the Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Read, for god's sake, because you will never hear anything remotely true on the brainwashing networks. Even though all published books are suspect, you must read them nonetheless. Read David Ray Griffin on 9-11. Richard Greaves on the New World Order. Read Joe Vialls and all anti-education ex-teachers. Believe that all conspiracy theories are just small pieces of the pie.
The elections are rigged. The candidates are rigged. John Kerry was a Skull and Bones member and no different from his Skull and Bones opponent, G.W.
No one who has not been pre-selected by the Bilderburgs has any chance of becoming President. Clinton was one of them; but when he went against them with his socialized medicine plan, the illuminati brought him down.
The great personalities of our time were all assassinated.
You are controlled from cradle to grave by forces beyond your control. If you are employed in a middle class job, you have done nothing your entire life to warrant scrutiny and are the enemy of real human beings.
Real human beings need unions, health care, child care, living wages, six weeks of paid vacation each year--all the things Europeans have. Americans are the dregs of the world. We have nothing but are brainwashed into believing that we do.
A college degree or a doctoral degree is meaningless unless you use it to exploit and enslave others for your benefit.
There are no schools anywhere in the U.S. working toward the betterment of humankind.
I was surrounded by CIA operatives at every idiotic university I attended. They take control of the student publications; and if they go insane, they are replaced by other operatives.
I lived through these things in the dark.

SharonJanuary 17, 2006 12:53 AM

I typically post at godlike productions or indymedia. Whenever I post outside my usual places, I get astonished responses. People outside the fringe have no idea what is really going on, so I enjoy posting in these places.
I want to follow up on my last post.
I am a Ph.D. in English who works at Wal-Mart. I live with my very bourgeois, elderly mother, who treats me like her slave. The only thing this woman has ever valued is money and possessions. She sits in front of the TV all day and all night, yet she could never imagine that TV is a plug-in drug. She sits there smoking cigarettes and drinking tea all day and all night. She leaves only to go to the doctor or church. She has innumerable doctors, who prescribe her very expensive medications, which she attempts to pay for with my minimum wage salary and the minimum wage salaries of her property renters.
None of her medications are designed to cure her. They are designed to make her pay thousands of dollars a month to make the drug companies very rich, but the poorest of the poor are paying her medical bills. She sees a doctor twice a week, while I have not seen a doctor in ten years.
My mother denies that I am on a watch list. She says that I am just the biggest loser of all time. My mother knows nothing at all about my situation and could care less. She is suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's and cannot remember anything at all, yet she brutalizes me beyond my endurance and vehemently denies every fact I tell her. My mother and father (dead since 1997) were the most insane parents imaginable. These people knew nothing about love or family. They forced me to embrace Marx to explain their insane cruelty and selfishness.
My mother would exploit anyone and anything to make another $100. In my entire life, I have never used anyone to get money.

William MurrayJanuary 25, 2006 10:47 AM

Take about beating around the "Bush". Read my correspondence with the FBI. Have all your readers contact the office and request they answer my question.

r----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Murray"
To: "Kraszka, Tammy L."
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Request for information


> Dear Ms. Kraska,
>
> Thank you for your response but apparently I am still having
> difficulty communicating with your office. I really do not care who
> may be on the watch list. I specifically want to know whether I am the

> designated individual on the watch list, not just a "Bill Murray".
> Your implication is that I am not the "Bill Murray" on the list. If my

> understanding is factual
> please confirm.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Murray
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kraszka, Tammy L."
> To: "Bill Murray"
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:51 AM
> Subject: RE: Request for information
>
>
> Mr Murray:
>
> As I stated before, the name Bill Murray may be on the watch list.
> This
> does
> not mean this is you. Because you have the name Bill Murray, security
> measures are taken to ensure you are not the same Bill Murray listed
on
> the
> watch list.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Bill Murray [mailto:wmurray8@comcast.net]
> Sent: Fri 1/20/2006 12:36 PM
> To: Kraszka, Tammy L.
> Subject: Re: Request for information
>
>
>
> Dear Ms. Kraszka,
>
> Just what do you mean by "I can't provide that information"? Do you
> mean
> you
> are precluded or incapable from answering my question due to some
> governmental constraint or does the FBI just refuse to answer my
request?
> My
> request is just and consistent with my rights as a citizen and with
the
> Freedom of Information Act. Is the FBI forcing me to take legal action
or
> obtain Congressional support in order to obtain information that you
have
> on me in your possession that may have placed me on a "watch list"? I
want
> to know what is the rationale for my being placed on the watch list.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Murray
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kraszka, Tammy L."
> To: "Bill Murray"
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:24 AM
> Subject: RE: Request for information
>
>
> I can't provide that information. The only thing I can tell you is
> that
> the
> procedure for checking people off the list is to verify their
identity.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Bill Murray [mailto:wmurray8@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 2:31 PM
> To: Kraszka, Tammy L.
> Subject: Re: Request for information
>
>
>
> Dear Ms. Kraszka,
>
> Please note that I furnished my SSN with my request. Am I the "Bill
> Murray"
> on the watch list? If so, why?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Murray
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kraszka, Tammy L."
> To: "Bill Murray"
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Request for information
>
>
> Dear Mr. Murray:
> The name "Bill Murray" may be on the Watch List. To avoid prolonged
> delays at the airport, you will need to provide your driver's license
> and any other identifiers (i.e. passport) to security if needed.
> Thank you.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Bill Murray [mailto:wmurray8@comcast.net]
> Posted At: Wed 1/18/2006 4:47 PM
> To: Tampa Division
> Posted To: Tampa Division
> Conversation: Request for information
> Subject: Request for information
>
>
>
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
> I talked to your Sarasota office this date and they suggested I
> contact
> you.
>
> On a recent trip to China I was informed by the airlines that I was on

> the "Watch List". This was surprising. As such, I request confirmation

> as to whether I was placed on a watch list. If affirmative, I would
> appreciate your sending me a copy of any and all information that may
> have been collected. My request for release of this information is in
> accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
>
>
>
>

Fed UpFebruary 8, 2006 9:39 AM

After reading many of the posts, I decided I too should inform others of a few situations we have encountered.

First...... FBI
In 1992, my husband and I had a chance to work abroad. Without dependent children, we decided to take advantage. After submitting a "Personnel Agency" fee, the agency went defunct. We filed charges with the local police, which referred us to the Trades Commission, which forwarded our file to the FBI. Within 6 months, I called them for an update, and this was their response, "Are you kidding? We're in the middle of the Rodney King situation. We don't have time to deal with this 'low-level' problem." I was so shocked, which is almost never, I had no response. I called again in 1996, only to leave my name and phone.... without a return call I might add. I called again last year, to be told, "The persons were jailed, and due to get out soon." Now one would think, since we were one of the victims, we would have been called as witnesses. I asked about restitution. The agent said, "Restitution? I better check on that." Did he call back? Noooooo.
Soooo, how many FBI agents does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Second..... Watch Lists
Having a child sent to war, sends a parent into a turmoil. You're told it needs to be done, but you suspect the person with 'his' "selling" the point, has personal motives. The child goes to Irag, and now you're so worried and sick.
The child calls a few times, and you've sent them gifts for the holidays.
Now you find yourself on "all" watch lists.

It's bad enough that individuals have to repeatedly hear such a bogus idea of going to war in Iraq, but to have an American Patriots family being monitored?

When I want to catch a mouse, I don't put out traps outside the places the varmit visits, because I may 'accidently' catch the neighbors cat or dog. This is exactly what's happening.

The idiots in charge have no clue to how to catch. Only to rope everyone in until either the dust settles, or they find something else that catches their attention.

When someone finally realizes we went to Iraq for personal vindication, will be the same day we might get America back on track of what out founding fathers meant it to be...... Freedom.... Our own, and against tyrants that use their powers for personal gain.

Pat CahalanMay 22, 2006 12:00 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060522/od_nm/...

I love this quote: "We make no apology for erring on the side of caution. We are talking about the protection of children and vulnerable adults"

Yeah, never mind protecting the 1,500 people from a gross violation of their civil rights... that doesn't deserve *at least* an apology...

Let's take our country backJune 19, 2006 8:55 PM

We're mad as hell and we shouldn't take it anymore.

1. Let's throw all the rascals out in November 2006.
2. In the finest traditions of civil disobedience, if enough of us petition the TSA to put our names on the watch list, the list will implode.

rutaJuly 7, 2006 6:41 PM

How i can find out, i am in the WATCH
LIST. If yes, what is the reason?

LuisSeptember 26, 2006 3:31 AM

How i can find out, i am in the WATCH
LIST. If yes, what is the reason?

Posted by: ruta at July 7, 2006 06:41 PM

You can check the site of Office of Foreign Assets
Control Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list. It doesnt matter if you are born in America - Click on the search write in your full name search that than write in your middle with first than last name try that .Any combo you can think of .
If they are looking for anyone that even remotely has your name you might be on it . I sadly am on it (I am a veteran with medals) and THEY HAVE BEEN NO HELP IGNORE ME AND I AM AT MY WITS END . I Have had things like Paypal frozen.

Someone on that list of endless names has my middle and first name (they use it as an alias among many other names) . Though they are born in a different country-diff age-etc,etc.

There are other lists from other agencies but this list you can access .

The people who run this are faceless,nameless "ghosts" .


NobodySeptember 19, 2007 3:17 PM

You know all of you rant and rave but none of you have a link to this list to see if a non-terroorist type person is on it. Now why is that?

Stue September 28, 2009 4:34 AM

That alleged "terrorist" they busted in Denver didn't get captured due to the watch list. Who does it capture? Is it supposed to keep "hijackers" off airplanes so they can't hijack planes? It seems like a way to mess with people who have different, or controversial views. Isn't that what the 1st Amendment is for-- controversial views, beliefs and speach? We don't need a 1st Amend for talking about strawberry jam. ITS TO PROTECT UNPOPULAR SPEECH

nameSeptember 28, 2009 5:02 AM

"You know all of you rant and rave but none of you have a link to this list to see if a non-terroorist type person is on it. Now why is that?"
Because we can't find one, the link isn't public just like the list isn't public. I'm on this page looking for answers too, most of us are. I believe if the gov't was more open then there'd be less of these problems and way less distrust.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..