47 ms·

What is really interesting about this document is that they are trying to create the rule book for determining suspected and actual terrorists. This is not an e

What is really interesting about this document is that they are trying to create the rule book for determining suspected and actual terrorists. This is not an easy task. This is why they create a 'nomination', 'verification' and 'implementation' process with their “originators,” “nominators,” “aggregators,” “screeners,” and “encountering agencies.” But the problem comes down to the actual facts. This document does a terrible job of separating a process design - First a candidate gets originated by an originator, who passes that said candidate on to a nominator, etc - from the basic factual requirements needed to become listed as a suspected (or actual) terrorist. (Though the latter would seem easier to determine.) What is really needed is a clear set of factually determined checks to show that someone is indeed a suspected terrorist. Not a process design that creates a structure towards watch list inclusion. In design this is often a problem. It's a very common mistake. Teams, Companies, Professionals design a process, but not the necessary, required steps - and everything just gets lost in that process, especially when everything takes place according to the plan. Here's what the watch list needs. A list that triggers inclusion. If a appears to have done x, y or z, a get's "originated." If x, y, and z are verified, a gets nominated. At this point counter rationales for x, y and z must be presented to excuse the suggestion of terrorism when there is none. Etc. What is important are the verifiable X, Y and Z actions. That's what a document of this type should present. Now I know that the response is that if people are told how they get onto a watchlist, they will try to avoid those tasks while maintaining their terrorist agenda, thereby avoiding being categorized as a suspect. But isn't that the point, don't we want people to not engage in pre-terrorist activity, like going to a training camp in Afghanistan, or sending money to organizations who have actively taken responsibility for civilian bombings. Isn't that the point? Getting people to be classified as suspected terrorists is not what a watchlist should be about. A watchlist should be about commonly agreed upon actions that as a society we do not support, and we can change our minds about what we do and do not support over time. Then the watchlist can be public, those on the watchlist can be public, their reason for being on the watchlist can be public and we can decide - together- who should and should not be on a watchlist. We already do it with criminals. Why is this process any different? Criminals can be just as deadly and corrupting to our society, but yet we've figured out a way (to some degree) to deal with them. We should be able to do the same with Terrorists. A new process is possible, one that will in fact make us, and everyone safer. This method is not that process. Or at least that is my opinion.

anigbrowl 12y ago
There's an exhaustively detailed exploration of the standards for inclusion from page 33-49 which seems to me to be a set of lists (of activities, memberships in proscribed organizations, relationships with publicly sanctioned individuals etc. etc.) that trigger inclusion of the sort you are asking for. There's also extensive guidance over who should not be included and when people should be removed from such lists. I can't help feeling tat most of the commenters here are stating their assumptions about the document's content without giving it even a cursory reading. Then the watchlist can be public, those on the watchlist can be public, their reason for being on the watchlist can be public and we can decide - together- who should and should not be on a watchlist. We already do it with criminals. Why is this process any different? We don't publish lists of suspected criminals. For many offenses requiring procedural steps prior to arrest and charge (eg presentment to a grand jury which returns an indictment), the process is not public, mainly to preserve individuals' rights.
- ChuckFrank 12y ago
  It makes no sense to say that this document is based upon preserving the rights of the individual, while actively stripping those rights. The idea that you can be added to a watchlist, but you can know why, or by whom, or how to get yourself removed, because you are preserving an individuals right seems counter intuitive to what those rights should be. Unless, I'm misunderstanding you. There is also a huge difference between being a suspected criminal and being a suspected terrorists, by how those definitions are actively managed. Suspected criminals are not barred from boarding planes, nor are they barred from banking, or housing, or otherwise. They are simply surveilled in a different capacity, until they are no longer suspected, or a case is developed to charge them. The process does have public components to preserve the rights of the individual. And as to my cursory reading - you are correct. I didn't see those standards as detailed. I will review them. But my point remains, why not publicize the specifics of those placed on the watchlist, just like we publicize the charges against those in criminal and civil proceedings. How is this different?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    It makes no sense to say that this document is based upon preserving the rights of the individual, while actively stripping those rights. This conversation will go better if you don't start out with straw man arguments; I said no such thing. The idea that you can be added to a watchlist, but you can know why, or by whom, or how to get yourself removed, because you are preserving an individuals right seems counter intuitive to what those rights should be. ...but not if you don't take time to actually read the document we're talking about, which includes sections on challenging inclusion and removal from lists. Absent a satisfactory administrative outcome, petitioners still have resort to the courts. This is consistent with the Constitutional design.

anigbrowl 12y ago

There's an exhaustively detailed exploration of the standards for inclusion from page 33-49 which seems to me to be a set of lists (of activities, memberships in proscribed organizations, relationships with publicly sanctioned individuals etc. etc.) that trigger inclusion of the sort you are asking for. There's also extensive guidance over who should not be included and when people should be removed from such lists. I can't help feeling tat most of the commenters here are stating their assumptions about the document's content without giving it even a cursory reading. Then the watchlist can be public, those on the watchlist can be public, their reason for being on the watchlist can be public and we can decide - together- who should and should not be on a watchlist. We already do it with criminals. Why is this process any different? We don't publish lists of suspected criminals. For many offenses requiring procedural steps prior to arrest and charge (eg presentment to a grand jury which returns an indictment), the process is not public, mainly to preserve individuals' rights.

ChuckFrank 12y ago
It makes no sense to say that this document is based upon preserving the rights of the individual, while actively stripping those rights. The idea that you can be added to a watchlist, but you can know why, or by whom, or how to get yourself removed, because you are preserving an individuals right seems counter intuitive to what those rights should be. Unless, I'm misunderstanding you. There is also a huge difference between being a suspected criminal and being a suspected terrorists, by how those definitions are actively managed. Suspected criminals are not barred from boarding planes, nor are they barred from banking, or housing, or otherwise. They are simply surveilled in a different capacity, until they are no longer suspected, or a case is developed to charge them. The process does have public components to preserve the rights of the individual. And as to my cursory reading - you are correct. I didn't see those standards as detailed. I will review them. But my point remains, why not publicize the specifics of those placed on the watchlist, just like we publicize the charges against those in criminal and civil proceedings. How is this different?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  It makes no sense to say that this document is based upon preserving the rights of the individual, while actively stripping those rights. This conversation will go better if you don't start out with straw man arguments; I said no such thing. The idea that you can be added to a watchlist, but you can know why, or by whom, or how to get yourself removed, because you are preserving an individuals right seems counter intuitive to what those rights should be. ...but not if you don't take time to actually read the document we're talking about, which includes sections on challenging inclusion and removal from lists. Absent a satisfactory administrative outcome, petitioners still have resort to the courts. This is consistent with the Constitutional design.