You know that there's a US terrorist watch list with a million names on it, no due process necessary to be added to it, and no discernible process to be removed from it? That's aside from local gang membership lists, which have the same complete lack of safeguards.
We're not heading back into anything. We love blacklists.
Probably people people who don't fit a certain profile, in the extreme people like kids, old people, billionaires, most politicians, priests, disabled people. Sure kids could grow to become terrorists but I doubt there are any 2 year olds in those lists. I don't know how many women fit the profile of a terrorist though.
The problem is even if you aren't one and even if you are not the one targeted by DHS/FBI, you could still be caught in it if someone with a similar name was caught up on it (like "Judy Smith", an alias used by an actual US domestic terrorist, which significantly inconvenienced a lot of Judy Smiths).
I mean, sure programs like TSA TRIP exists to mitigate this, but in practice no-one outside of TSA readily honors or knows them (and certainly not Equifax, which considering credit scores are widely utilized, would definitely impact their day-to-day life).
There's also the fact you can end up on a DHS list and there seems no real way to get off of it, even after being interrogated by HSI / DHS on many occasions and them seemingly being satisfied you are indeed not a terrorist. See my post below for more on how I know this.
Go through the US border. You'll find out. Even if you are a US citizen. I got thrown on something like this almost a decade ago when I fought alongside the YPG, a US backed Kurdish militia that fought against literal ISIS.
DHS/CBP put me on some fucked up list and now everytime I re-enter the US I get detained, accused of crimes, tossed in holding cell. Last time it was 16 hours and they involuntarily took me to two hospitals, got a warrant to "internally search me" (anally), and drove me 60 miles to two different hospitals against my will while chained and cuffed while being accused of being a smuggler with no basis whatsoever. Later the hospitals sent me the bill, even though I never consented to anything, and there was no true medical reason for being dragged to the hospitals against my will, and despite DHS/CBP lying and saying they would pay for the hospital bills. I also filed complaints with the board for the medical professionals, and of course was told that a nurse can perform a law enforcement "search" without consent even without a warrant (the warrant was actually not served until after I went through the hospitals) and without even a court order or even being arrested (I wasn't arrested).
Yes that's right, the Arizona nursing board says nurses can act as sworn law enforcement and can search you without even a warrant or probable cause and even if you never consent to any medical care or even being touched, and that they can provide medical care against your consent even if it's not an emergency and without a court order or warrant and without you even having been arrested. DHS has taken profit off of this opinion and now uses nurses to search people on their list without having to get their own hands dirty and minimize their own constitutional limitations.
Let me count a few other occasions. Another time I was told I would never be allowed to re-enter the US; yes that as a US citizen I could not enter the United States. On yet another occasion I was told my passport would be cancelled, even though there's no real legal mechanism for them to do that. You can imagine what it's like to smile and nod your head while being told these wild lies by officers who may even be poorly trained enough to believe this themselves. It's always 4+ hours of detainment to cross a border along with intense attempted interrogation by DHS/HSI detectives. Ah yes, I've been fingerprinted and "booked" by DHS as well, on what basis I don't understand, even without being arrested.
I have never been charged of any crimes, I have no criminal record, and in fact the only thing I did "wrong" was help protect people from actual terrorists.
So yeah, if you want to find out. Jus cross the border, turn around and come back. You'll find out quite agressively.
>So yeah, if you want to find out. Jus cross the border, turn around and come back. You'll find out quite agressively.
Were you deployed or did you go there on your own? Joining with a militia and fighting in a war zone full of terrorists is the sort of activity that should trip all the red flags. US-backing doesn't necessarily mean the group is without their own controversies and if you weren't deployed how the hell do they actually know what your goals were while you were there?
I get it, your situation sucks ass and you shouldn't be subject to abuse but you're absolutely not a normal case and 'fighting with a foreign militia' is exactly the sort of activity customs is going to want to know the story behind.
Should something that "trips the red flags" result in someone being treated that way? I would think at this point the security police would already know the "story behind" it, or if they don't it doesn't seem like more of the same kinds of interrogations are going to help; do you think they learn more of the "story behind" it each time? Or, what do you think the point of that treatment is? Do you think it is making the country safer? (and after all, as a US citizen who has not been charged of any crime, he is eventually let back into the country each time. So... what is the point of this?)
>Should something that "trips the red flags" result in someone being treated that way?
There's a lot to unpack in their post, the situation sucks for them and I'm not defending the treatment they received, I am pointing out that they aren't a normal citizen if they go to high risk areas and fight with foreign militias.
>I would think at this point the security police would already know the "story behind" it
Cross enough times and a citizen with a boring enough life will probably receive some scrutiny over why they cross so much. I dated a foreigner for many years and at some point her country started to get suspicious of me wanting to overstay. The Americans just wanted to know if I was a smuggler moving drugs or cash back, that's it. The country I was going to was not an active warzone, though when I first crossed as I was younger to 'meet friends I met online' this triggered some extra scrutiny.
> Do you think it is making the country safer?
Vetting citizens returning from fighting with foreign combatants probably does fit the exact scenario of making the country safer. There is no way possible for US government to know (nor should they know) what a citizen is doing every second of their life. Having to go through a secondary and receive questioning about what they've been up to in a high-risk area is not unreasonable.
I think you have some reasonable views on this. I hope someday DHS/CBP is taken over by a person such as yourself, because they basically have free reign at the border as a "constitution free zone" and most citizens who never travel don't care to petition their representatives to make any changes.
If you have some time I encourage you to read the experience of Ms. Cervantes, a woman "legally" finger raped by border patrol / physicians.
If all they did was "try to find out" and then letting me go when they are either satisfied or I stop talking and they have no probable cause a crime has occurred, I would have never made this post.
It's clear to me these lists are as much about extra-judicial punishment as "finding out." I do not think a place exists in our society for these lists that impose against the freedom of citizens to travel without some sort of due process to petition a court for removal and/or some way to "drop off" the list after X years of living as a free peaceful citizen in harmony with others. Law enforcement officers should be tasked with enforcing the law, not with harassing people about things that are non-criminal, like fighting against ISIS (believe it or not there is no law that prevents you from fighting in a foreign militia, and in fact I do not believe any American has ever been charged for fighting with YPG.)
Have you ever crossed a US border by land or sea or flown into the US? Customs agents handle ports of entry, border patrol handles the border between ports. Both are under CBP under homeland security but wear different uniforms, different job activities. They mentioned crossings and most citizens not wanting a headache use the legal crossings.
It all gets blurred if you're a US citizen. We don't get our passports stamped at all. Quite often they aren't even checked on the way out. CBP has combined task of border patrol and customs enforcement. As someone who's interacted with CBP many a time I get the impression the same officer often takes on both tasks.
Having been fighting at a war zone on a voluntary basis with no official role is exactly the sort of thing they should be asking questions about, but these forced anal cavity searches are essentially rape and used as torture device which is despicable.
Sadly the border is the one exception where filming/recording an official in execution of their duties is illegal (constitution "doesn't apply" at the border). Same to cell phone operation. There's no way to record it. And I get strip-searched when I cross the border by officers who have found themselves quite desperate to find something, anything, to charge me with.
I would say the banning of recording at the border is something DHS/CBP counts on in order to enable their pattern of abuse. And when they lie in their warrant, it helps them greatly as it's purely your word against theirs.
And doesn't "the border" get defined as something like 100 miles from every "port of entry", which not only includes land borders and the coasts but also internal international airports?
In seriousness, many in the Jan 6 mob, and in the supporting supremicist militia are terrorists and no doubt also US citizens. At least 10s, possibly hundreds of thousands. Not the colloquial mental model but fit the definition nonetheless.
People who believe those actions were justified are not "evil" in the sense they want to do evil things for the sake of it. I think, as a complete outsider to US politics, they're just genuinely thinking they're the good guys fighting against the truly evil ones, the ones who are not respecting democracy (I think they believe the election was stolen, right?)... a good person may feel it's their duty to fight by all means necessary for democracy or whatever system they believe religiously to be the "right" one. And that doing things that appear evil to defend the good fight is justified... every single war in human history was fought on these terms: by people believing so strongly to be in the right that they are willing to kill their enemy. If you think a crowd starts a riot or a country starts a war because they're simply evil and want to do evil things, you're probably watching too many movies and not understanding human behaviour, including your own.
If you're saying those people who stormed the US Capitol building had "terroristic tendencies", well, I think nearly every person does. We all argue, fight, and probably even kill given the right (wrong) circumstances.
Completely agree that "good" vs "evil" are terms relative to a particular institutional/political bias, and while it is impossible for any person to be outside ALL institutional/political frames, it is vitally important from the "inside" to be refreshed with outsider perspectives from time to time.
What strikes me- as an American who thinks Trump is a sociopath as well as a grifter and who suggested the "terrorist" framing earlier in this thread- what strikes me as an opportunity in the public conversation with and about Jan 6 and Trump that has not been explored in any way is the fact that the vast majority of those who came to the Capital, even those with violent intent, spoke about and believed they were acting with a patriotic duty- exactly the same duty that those of us who looked upon those actions with horror and disgust feel and experience.
I think there is an opportunity for a political actor to speak to the Trump audience and start from that place of patriotism, that place of dury- that is what all "Americans" have in common. It should be possible to tell a story that stays on the path of what is common to all patriots, and in doing so start to repair the broken views of those currently in the Big Lie faithful.
However, no political actor has actually done so. Maybe the time is not right. Maybe the visionary who can craft that story isn't yet with us.
In their absence- there IS good and evil because here there ARE sides. The world that those with violent intent came to the capital to enshrine are evil, and terrorists, from my perspective- the above notwithstanding!
Sometimes politics fails. And you have to take sides.
Stop trying to ruin his life. Saying random things around the capitol doesn't make someone a terrorist. He's just trying to live his best life now no thanks to people like you
I dunno man I hang out in libertarian circles and know plenty of men and women going “camping with their friends” on the weekend. They’re spending their time doing target practice and prepping for if shit hits the fan here in the US.
I’d guess every one of those people is on a domestic terrorism watchlist as “potential terrorists”. They’re all good guys and haven’t done anything illegal, but the feds don’t know that.
Do you really imagine anyone with a gun who goes out target shooting with friends is a terrorist? How about that armed fellow who shot last month's mall shooter dead? Most people think he's a hero. He saved a lot of lives.
“Owns a gun” immediately puts you in an elevated threat category in my mind. That’s not the same as believing something specific like they are a “terrorist” but i’d be surprised if I was rare in thinking that way.
What a sadly ignorant, bigoted and unrealistic world view. This statement reminds me of the era when all gay men were treated as suspected pedophiles.
There are more guns in America than people. 99.99999% of guns will never be used in a crime. An American who buys a car is far more likely to hurt someone with their car than someone who buys a gun is to hurt someone with that gun.
Most gun owners use them to target shoot as a hobby, or hunt deer. Some people also consider them a supplement to locks on their doors as home protection.
There are more guns in america than people, but only 32% of americans own guns.
I am way more likely to be hurt by a car - you’re right. The presence of cars in an environment puts me at an elevated threat level. When I’m standing waiting for a light I often try to make sure there is a pole between me and traffic.
But with very few exceptions, it’s hard for someone to bring a car into environments where I am not expecting them. Guns, not so much.
If you own a lockpicking set, i believe you when you say it’s for fun and learning - but to pretend owning it does nothing to the risk that you might unlock my front door is just denial.
When DHS flagged my passport gun ownership was one of the first things they asked me about. I don't think ownership is enough to flag you but your answer or lack thereof undoubtable is placed in the database for whatever sort of assessment they use.
You got a bit trigger happy to score points for Team Gun and missed that this person is actually on your side.
> I hang out in libertarian circles
> They’re all good guys and haven’t done anything illegal
That said - raising the one single isolated case of a person with a gun helping to stop a mass shooting, while conveniently forgetting the hundreds of such attacks that have occurred in past couple of years is IMO pretty disgusting. If I were making the argument that gun ownership was not a cause for suspicion I'd be giving mass shootings an extremely wide berth.
I have no idea what they think they are preparing for, but it sounds like the kind of people who want a new civil war. And those people tend to be bad.
or perhaps they are just fed up with bowing to a government that doesn't work for them? The USA was founded by terrorists too, from the POV of Britain...
"No, they are terrorists who want a civil war" is not the comeback you think it is. The people who think like that should be on watchlists and the registries that prevent them from buying guns.
The last civil war in the united states happened something like two life-times ago. Being prepared for the possibility of an unwanted civil war is not the same thing as wanting to start one. Given that war within the border of the US in a lifetime is historically well within "one unlucky 6-sided dice roll" it doesn't seem that weird of a thing for people to worry about, or possibly even somehow "prepare" for.
Which has nothing to do with the person I was responding to who talked about "bowing to the government" and how revolutionaries are always perceived as terrorists.
In that case, I would point out that trying to extrapolate a rate of civil wars from black swan events seems almost impossible. It's happened one time in US history (two if you want to count the American Revolution).
And how do these people's preparations help in the event of a civil war?
Based off inconclusive evidence, I speculate that your name is Walter.
Speculation is a valid form of discourse and has a non-negligible chance of being accurate. What is the value in your attempted invalidation of such discourse?
"The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database is the U.S. government’s primary watch list, and what people usually mean when they refer to the terrorist watch list. It contains about 1 million records. About 5,000 of those records — 0.5 percent — are about Americans."
"As of 2017, there were about 1.16 million people on the TSDB; the great majority are foreigners, but the list also includes approximately 4,600 U.S. persons." [1]
We're not heading back into anything. We love blacklists.