Blacklisted: The Secret Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist. From the Intercept

[Luminous Animal]

By Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

A long but worth it read. The 4 paragraph snip does not do justice to the article.

The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.

The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place “entire categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

Over the years, the Obama and Bush Administrations have fiercely resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the databases—though the guidelines are officially labeled as unclassified. In May, Attorney General Eric Holder even invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent watchlisting guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list. In an affidavit, Holder called them a “clear roadmap” to the government’s terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: “The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed … could cause significant harm to national security.”

The rulebook, which The Intercept is publishing in full, was developed behind closed doors by representatives of the nation’s intelligence, military, and law-enforcement establishment, including the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI. Emblazoned with the crests of 19 agencies, it offers the most complete and revealing look into the secret history of the government’s terror list policies to date. It reveals a confounding and convoluted system filled with exceptions to its own rules, and it relies on the elastic concept of “reasonable suspicion” as a standard for determining whether someone is a possible threat. Because the government tracks “suspected terrorists” as well as “known terrorists,” individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity.

[grasswire]

1. sooooo anti-American, this.

Kudos to Intercept for bringing this to attention.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Ayup.

[grasswire]

3. kick

for an important story.

crickets from the apologists.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Link to the rulebook

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228-2013-watchlist-guidance.html#document/

[Luminous Animal]

5. Page 48. Torturers are terrorists.

[octoberlib]

6. Protesters and activists beware

The document’s definition of “terrorist” activity includes actions that fall far short of bombing or hijacking. In addition to expected crimes, such as assassination or hostage-taking, the guidelines also define destruction of government property and damaging computers used by financial institutions as activities meriting placement on a list. They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation.

[merrily]

28. Occupy is clearly within that definition. (So was Sam Adams--the man, not the

beer.)

Any protest that could be construed as anti-government--and most could-- fits the definition, especially if the protest in on public property.

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, political right and civil liberty.

Freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom of joining an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and the Constitution of the United States, is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association.[2][not in citation given]

The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'" in the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

That must be some shredder.

[octoberlib]

37. Occupy came to mind immediately.

[octoberlib]

7. And this.

While the guidelines nominally prohibit nominations based on unreliable information, they explicitly regard “uncorroborated” Facebook or Twitter posts as sufficient grounds for putting an individual on one of the watchlists. “Single source information,” the guidelines state, “including but not limited to ‘walk-in,’ ‘write-in,’ or postings on social media sites, however, should not automatically be discounted … the NOMINATING AGENCY should evaluate the credibility of the source, as well as the nature and specificity of the information, and nominate even if that source is uncorroborated.”

[merrily]

30. Freedom of assembly, right to petition government, freedom of speech,

freedom of association, right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty before a jury of your peers before government punishes you in any way, etc.

That must be some shredder.

Luckily for government, we don't seem to really care all that much. And, if we did, they have more firepower than we do.

[octoberlib]

36. I think it's either a case of

'it hasn't effected me yet, so I'm not going to worry about it" or the populace just isn't well-informed on this subject. I noticed that this hasn't been mentioned at all on any cable news programs. It was generally ignored by the MSM with the exception of the NYT.

[merrily]

40. The populace is not well informed. And possibly exhausted.

[grasswire]

53. thanks for listing those (former) protections this violates

I don't understand why there aren't a thousand recs for this post.

[merrily]

55. You're welcome. I probably missed some, but it's a message board, not

grad school.

I don't understand why there aren't a thousand recs for this post.

That is a polite way to put it.

[Dustlawyer]

8. Shit, I have been on that damn list since 12/2001! Just because I have a common name that

my assigned FBI agent told me was used as an alias once by a terrorist from South Yeman. He went on to say that there is/was a 15 point trigger, meaning if you triggered one point, BAM, your day just got real shitty! There was an article in a major magazine about us (everyone with a name like mine or similar), where a 78 year old black grandmother with a similar name to mine was stopped every time she flew to see her grand kids.

This was 13 years ago and I am still on it, as are millions more by now!

[octoberlib]

11. Can you fly?

The article states how hard t is to get off the list , once they place you on it.

[Dustlawyer]

17. Yes, as long as I fly Continental Airlines and use my frequent flyer number online I am ok.

For the 1st year it was a nightmare. The 1st time it happened I had guns drawn on me in the middle of a circular area with about 10 Gates all full of people waiting to board. Missed a lot of flights even when getting there extra early and took a whole lot of abuse! It's another excuse to search us!

[Luminous Animal]

14. That sucks. I naively thought that when Ted Kennedy ended up on the no fly list

that their would be some movement in Congress to rein this in.

I was wrong.

[hack89]

9. This list comes up a lot in gun control discussions

there are some here that think that having your name on the list means you should be banned from owning guns.

[Adam051188]

10. why you no have tattoo?

[thesquanderer]

12. "unclassified" but not to be made public?

With all this orwellian redefinition of words, you can never be sure what anything means anymore...

[aggiesal]

13. Anything destroyed belonging to ...

any corpo-facist organization puts you on the list.
Just saying BOO to any government entity appears to make you
qualified to be placed on this list.

Good thing we have Obama.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

15. K&R

Thanks for posting.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Kick.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Luminous Animal.

[grasswire]

19. stunning

The guidelines provide the clearest explanation yet of what is happening when Americans and foreigners are pulled aside at airports and border crossings by government agents. The fifth chapter, titled “Encounter Management and Analysis,” details the type of information that is targeted for collection during “encounters” with people on the watchlists, as well as the different organizations that should collect the data. The Department of Homeland Security is described as having the largest number of encounters, but other authorities, ranging from the State Department and Coast Guard to foreign governments and “certain private entities,” are also involved in assembling “encounter packages” when watchlisted individuals cross their paths. The encounters can be face-to-face meetings or electronic interactions—for instance, when a watchlisted individual applies for a visa.

In addition to data like fingerprints, travel itineraries, identification documents and gun licenses, the rules encourage screeners to acquire health insurance information, drug prescriptions, “any cards with an electronic strip on it (hotel cards, grocery cards, gift cards, frequent flyer cards),” cellphones, email addresses, binoculars, peroxide, bank account numbers, pay stubs, academic transcripts, parking and speeding tickets, and want ads. The digital information singled out for collection includes social media accounts, cell phone lists, speed dial numbers, laptop images, thumb drives, iPods, Kindles, and cameras. All of the information is then uploaded to the TIDE database.

Screeners are also instructed to collect data on any “pocket litter,” scuba gear, EZ Passes, library cards, and the titles of any books, along with information about their condition—”e.g., new, dog-eared, annotated, unopened.” Business cards and conference materials are also targeted, as well as “anything with an account number” and information about any gold or jewelry worn by the watchlisted individual. Even “animal information”—details about pets from veterinarians or tracking chips—is requested. The rulebook also encourages the collection of biometric or biographical data about the travel partners of watchlisted individuals.

The list of government entities that collect this data includes the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is neither an intelligence nor law-enforcement agency. As the rulebook notes, USAID funds foreign aid programs that promote environmentalism, health care, and education. USAID, which presents itself as committed to fighting global poverty, nonetheless appears to serve as a conduit for sensitive intelligence about foreigners. According to the guidelines, “When USAID receives an application seeking financial assistance, prior to granting, these applications are subject to vetting by USAID intelligence analysts at the TSC.” The guidelines do not disclose the volume of names provided by USAID, the type of information it provides, or the number and duties of the “USAID intelligence analysts.”

[grasswire]

20. "categorically watchlisting"

the money phrase. Same as "profiling."

[Buns_of_Fire]

27. Sort of like "anyone who posts on DU."

Or "Anyone who reads DU."

Or "Anyone who knows what DU is." (Which, oddly enough, would include most of the uber-"patriots" on The Site Which Shall Not Be Named.)

Or "Anyone who has Internet access and could potentially access DU."

Or "Anyone who has a computer."

Or "Anyone who knows someone who might have a computer."

That covers the obligatory six degrees, I think. I'm sure there are extra points (upgrades, as it were) for referring to the former CiC as "Shit-Fer-Brains," mocking Starship Captain Keith Alexander, or referring to that lyin' SOB Clapper as "that lyin' SOB."

[Generic Other]

56. You forgot the ghosts

"It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted."

[Pholus]

52. Happily that process has super "threat-based expedited upgrade" powers!

And there is the justification for the Utah center right there. You can't categorically classify people you know nothing about.

Files just like the Stasi but without the jars of scent. We use credit cards instead...

[grasswire]

21. comments over at TI are worth reading, as usual nt

[Luminous Animal]

22. Quite a few very intelligent commentators at that site.

[Maedhros]

26. There are a core of excellent commentators that have followed Greenwald

from Salon to the Guardian to The Intercept. Quite a few RW kooks, too, who (oddly enough) sneer at Glenn even though he is a "hardcore Libertarian" to some deluded fools

[Luminous Animal]

29. I've been a commentator a few month after he started his blog "unclaimed territory" back in 2005.

i discovered him through Digby.

[WillyT]

23. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Luminous Animal]

24. Kick. Because Ted Kennedy ended up on this list and you are next.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Kick.

[ReRe]

31. K&R

This needs to be kicked regular and often. As well as read!

If every Democrat in this country doesn't come out this fall and turn Congress blue again, we're in for it. Only a veto-proof/filibuster-proof Democratic Congress can turn all this injustice around. Or at least that's what has played out for a century or so.

[Maedhros]

38. Is there any evidence that congressional Democrats WANT to turn this around? [n/t]

[ReRe]

41. Good question.

... It's clear we can't depend on D.C. (Democratic Corporate) Presidents to do anything. It's just the next logical alternative in my mind. Yes, there's a bunch of DINOs that need to be booted. Or they just need to be counted as Republicans, when we are thinking about veto-proof/filibuster-proof numbers. What are your ideas on cleaning up this mess?

[Maedhros]

42. It seems to me that when it comes to the National Security State, there is only one Party.

This problem is compounded by the fact that there is no political will among the rank and file of the Democratic Party to hold its elected officials accountable for allowing these abuses to continue.

It's a matter of political courage. The common refrain from most Democrats is: if Democratic politicians reign in the out-of-control military-industrial-security complex, then Conservative politicians and pundits will accuse them of being "soft on terrorism." Thus, elected Democrats must go along with the security state to get along.

The solution is actually simple. Hold Democratic politicians accountable for their support of this nonsense by not re-electing them. If there are electoral consequences for destroying our civil liberties, then Democrats will learn that they cannot play the "lesser of two evils" card to avoid accountability. As it stands, Democratic politicians know that they can pretty much vote for any war or support any erosion of our basic civil liberties as long as they can point to a Republican opponent and claim that they would be worse. They have learned that they can get away with this behavior because we keep electing them no matter what bullshit they pull. Why shouldn't they feed at the military/industrial/security trough, when there are no consequences for doing so?

[ReRe]

43. Which leads us to...

... and uninformed electorate. John Q Public out there doesn't know all that you and I know. The role of the bought and paid for M$M, the psywar branch of the MIC, is to be sure that JQPublic is as stupid as mud. Enter the Internet. Do you think the Internet is educating, doing what the M$M is not, i.e. informing the public? Ha! I bet if you went out on the street and asked people what "Civil Liberties" are, it would be difficult to not laugh in their faces as they tried to answer the question. Half of them or more wouldn't even know who their elected representatives are.

I know what you mean about the Democratic politicians. They can't stand the heat when the Repubs criticize them. I've never seen such a bunch of sissies in my life. They all remind me of Harry Reid. They need to be more like Duval Patrick and grow a damn backbone.

Things sure don't look good, but I'll be damned if I'm going to throw in the towel and and go-along-to-get-along. Demographics may be our salvation, if we can get a REAL Democratic majority in both sides of the Capitol building.

[Maedhros]

47. The damnedest thing is that if some Democrat took up a fiery populist pro-labor stance,

I think most people would embrace it - especially when the going is rough, like it is now.

They're afraid of what might be their best tactic. Probably lots of reasons why.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

48. We need someone like Norman Thomas.

Look him up.

He ran for president several times. After FDR was elected in 1932 he enacted most of Thomas' socialist platform.

Norman Thomas was also a Presbyterian minister.

[ReRe]

49. Well, they better...

... get busy. They certainly have enough ammunition.

[2banon]

44. Excellent question..maybe Wyden? Oh wait..

nevermind..

[Maedhros]

46. No - Wyden and Udall should get some credit.

They were telling us something was wrong.

[2banon]

54. yes, that is a fact. They may have to take a "civil disobedient" action

and violate whatever "secrets" agreement in revealing to the public what we actually need to know.

[riderinthestorm]

32. A Sad disgusted kick. And a bigger rec! nt

[rhett o rick]

33. Good article. Thanks for posting. I thought The Intercept was on the DU version of the no-fly

(banned) source list like the ever dangerous RT and The Guardian.

[Oilwellian]

34. A system designed to intimidate

Thanks Obama!

K&R

[L0oniX]

35. Pre-revolutionary Americans were all on the British terrorist watch list.

[blkmusclmachine]

39. Thanks, 9/11 ...

[2banon]

45. Thanks for posting this, Luminous Animal

theres' a lot of reading for me to digest on this. So, i'm not qualified to speak about this particular information, except to say there is a flavor reminiscent of the 60's for me.. Dossiers on anti-war protestors, because after all they were radical anti-americans, which automatically qualified as "terrorist".

The difference, which is huge, there were no such thing as a "no fly" list then. There were illegal wiretaps, surveillance and worse. but we've graduated to a whole new different level which is best described in 1984 I think.

[Pholus]

51. But I was told the Church Committee fixed all of this and we're better!

Then again, maybe Sen Church didn't realize that there is a super-secret dictionary somewhere that defines "you will not" as "you will not (disclose that you are)".

What fun we are having here!

[cantbeserious]

50. Can There Be Any Doubt - America Is Officially Dead

eom

[Generic Other]

57. They plan to monitor us after we die too!

"It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted." Of course vigilance is the best policy where walkers are concerned... Idiots.

My tax dollars support idiots on the government payroll! How come I can't get an exemption from paying for this kind of shit? Just like Hobby Lobby, I have strong beliefs. I think idiots should not be able to waste my tax money.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Kicked, with a link to a .pdf of the actual document:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228/2013-watchlist-guidance.pdf