BABY DOE WAS 7 months old when his troubles with the U.S. government began. His mother was taking him on a flight when security officials stopped them at an airport. He was patted down and subjected to “chemical testing.” His mother’s bag was searched. His diapers were examined. Unbeknownst to the family from California, four letters on the infant’s boarding pass — “SSSS” — had singled him out as a particularly dangerous class of individual: a “known or suspected terrorist.”
Four years later, Baby Doe, as he’s identified in court documents, is part of a class-action lawsuit taking aim at the federal government’s sweeping terrorist watchlisting system. His ordeal is one of 18 included in the suit, filed Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia, by the Michigan branch of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. The rights group claims its plaintiffs’ collective experiences are the consequence of “an injustice of historic proportions.”
“Through extra-judicial and secret means,” the suit alleges, “the federal government is ensnaring individuals into an invisible web of consequences that are imposed indefinitely and without recourse as a result of the shockingly large federal watchlists that now include hundreds of thousands of individuals.”
Before September 11, 2001, the U.S. government had a list of 16 people prohibited from boarding flights due to suspected terrorism links. By 2013, that number had swelled to 47,000. Today, the watchlisting apparatus includes both the no-fly list and the selectee list — which triggers the enhanced airport screening Baby Doe’s family allegedly experienced — as well as other lesser-known, though much larger, secret government watchlists.
The watchlisting system has come under fire from attorneys across the country, who have blasted the procedures for secretly labeling individuals as known or suspected terrorists — “KSTs” in government parlance — as discriminatory against Muslims, arbitrary in execution, and devoid of acceptable means for legal challenge and redress. For years, the government would refuse even to acknowledge whether an individual was included on the no-fly list. Following recent rounds of litigation, the Department of Homeland Security last year instituted a policy of providing confirmation to people who believe they have been wrongly watchlisted so long as the disclosure does not endanger “national security and law enforcement interests.”
In addition to compensation for those wrongly watchlisted, the CAIR lawsuit aims to break down obstacles faced by those seeking to challenge their placement on the government’s controversial lists. The government has three weeks to respond to the suit. The FBI said it could not comment on pending litigation.
CAIR’s class action suit takes particular issue with the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, the U.S. government’s central terrorism watchlist. Overseen by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the TSDB both draws from and informs a number of other government lists. In 2014, The Intercept published a set of government documents that lays out how the watchlisting process works as well as its massive scope. Among the materials was the Obama administration’s 2013 “Watchlisting Guidance,” which revealed that U.S. officials require neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to secretly label an individual a known or suspected terrorist. Another document showed that nearly half the 680,000 people listed on the TSDB were described as having “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.”
The documents also revealed that more than 1 million people were included in the government’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment system, an expansive database drawn from intelligence community sources that feeds into the TSDB and other associated lists. Aside from legal and ethical concerns, the sheer size of the government’s multiple overlapping lists has led critics to argue that such an overwhelming amount of data makes it more difficult for law enforcement and national security officials to pinpoint risks and protect the public.
In Tuesday’s court filing, CAIR cited the documents disclosed by The Intercept as evidence of a watchlisting system gone haywire, noting that the consequences of an individual being wrongly labeled a potential threat to national security include “the unimaginable indignity and real-life danger of having their own government communicate to hundreds of thousands of federal agents, private contractors, businesses, state and local police, the captains of sea-faring vessels, and foreign governments all across the world that they are a violent menace.”
CAIR also observed that inclusion on one of the government’s terrorist watchlists can expose individuals to pressure from federal authorities to become informants in risky counterterrorism investigations. “Defendants have utilized the watchlist, not as a tool to enhance aviation and border security, but as a bludgeon to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants or forgoing the exercise of their rights, such as the right to have an attorney present during law enforcement questioning.”
The documents published by The Intercept in 2014 listed the five U.S. cities with the highest concentrations of watchlisted residents. Four of those locations — New York, Houston, San Diego, and Chicago — are cities with millions of residents. The city with the second highest concentration of watchlisted individuals, however, was Dearborn, Michigan, population 96,000, home of the largest percentage of Arab-Americans in the United States. More than half of the plaintiffs in CAIR’s lawsuit, all of whom are Muslim, reside in Michigan.
Although the lawsuit comes at time of heightened anxiety for many Muslim Americans, Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, was quick to point out that pressure on Muslim communities from law enforcement and intelligence agencies has been going on for years, under both Republican and Democratic presidents.
“This type of profiling, which includes the watchlist that started under President Bush, mushroomed under a Democratic president, Mr. Obama,” Walid told The Intercept, before offering a list of grievances that spanned both presidents and ranged from the New York City Police Department’s haphazard mapping of Muslim communities, to the FBI’s use of confidential informants in American mosques, to the NSA’s surveillance of prominent Muslim Americans. “In terms of the policing of Muslim communities, it’s happened already.”
“We’re concerned about the hyperbolic rhetoric that’s coming out of the right in particular, in terms of banning immigration or banning Syrian refugees,” Walid said, “But in terms of the state of the surveillance apparatus that’s taking place right now, it’s already horrendous under President Obama.”
Related:
- The Secret Government Rulebook for Labeling You a Terrorist
- Barack Obama’s Secret Terrorist Tracking System, By the Numbers
Was the baby’s name Stewie Griffin?
There are two big problems with secrecy in a democracy. The first is as we ave found out government secrecy hides illegal acts by agents of the government.
The second is voters are not informed and cant’ judge whether they wish to allow the secret programs. Voters have been assured that the secrecy is necessary by our representatives. There is plenty of evidence we have been lied to about the scope and legality of secret problems. We are told that the voters then are not qualified to make an informed decision about the secret program.
The electorate is supposed to be the ultimate decision makers but we have been cut out of the process to control and we now in the position we have been before that the secret government has grown to big and now threatens the public by restricting our liberty.
Yes, the draconian state strikes back.
https://jackblueblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/the-new-social-contract/
This reminds me of when Nicolas Sarkozy, still Minister of the Interior, in 2005 tried to get a law passed that would detect and register “future delinquents” as of the age of… three. It draw such furor that it was withdrawn, but an unrepentant Sarkozy as president did create a national database of all school and kindergarten children containing information with possible blacklisting consequences: how long ago their parents moved to France, their job and income status, and so on. Read: are these the kids of “well-integrated” residents (of course this was mostly about the Arab population) or not. I live in France and refused to fill in the forms, as the highest court of the land had ruled parents could. But almost no one knew that. The school directorship sought me out to thank me! They were livid with anger about the central database. Things have changed since in the sense that school forms are less intrusive, but the information gathered back then is still in that database. And Sarkozy’s party, which will no doubt claim the presidency a year from now, still stands by the idea of detecting “future delinquency” at age three.
We don’t have huge no-fly lists, but our governments have other means to stigmatize and cow residents.
Might be more interesting with tax dodgers. Is the parent a politician? Put the kids on the black tax list.
As bad as these lists are, there are far more dangerous “non-confrontational” blacklists that the general public doesn’t seem to really understand.
With these blacklists the person was “confronted” at the airport. That official confrontation gave them “legal standing” in federal court to challenge this unconstitutional practice.
Non-Confrontational Blacklisting is far more dangerous and far more lethal over a long period of time (nearly 15 years without Judicial Review). This was the type of blacklisting perpetrated against a Baptist minister, Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights era.
The “non-confrontational” version was also used by East Germany during the Cold War. Blacklisting by the East German Stasi (communist secret police) resulted in one of the highest death rates in Europe during the Cold War.
Until the U.S. Supreme Court starts policing the national security agencies, it’s nearly impossible for “non-confrontational” blacklisting victims to obtain legal standing in court. Many blacklisting crime victims aren’t even aware that government agencies destroyed their employment, livelihoods, marriages, reputations, etc. which results in premature death or suicide.
I’m assuming you mean TIs..I also agree. I get followed in San Diego (one of the listed cities) by local cops and those in what I believe are Border Patrol SUVS..but they NEVER approach and I’m sure that they are instructed not to..but they definitely let me know they are there…B&W helicopters too..so yes, TIs are not going to be on any available govt list–the list(s) we are on is the same kind of list that Tuskegee experimentees were on or those used as govt involuntary guinea pigs..like with the CIA’s MK-ULTRA. Nope, those types of lists will have to be stolen again like those revealed in the Church Committee Hearings or released and heavily redacted by the govt agency funding this illegal nazi research (CIA, FBI, DIA, DoD, NSA)–I’m sure if history is any indication–they’ll do that after they figure we are all dead and gone and can’t sue.
Nine times out of ten, when a child is watch-listed, it’s because someone complains they were crying on a flight. So the kids generally deserve it.
That one’s a misfire. What you meant to say is that there is a high probability that infants will cry on a flight, creating a disturbance among the passengers and potentially distracting flight crew from other security issues. This makes them with high probability complicit in any potential attempt to hijack the plane and crash it into a building – which means that of course they all belong on a terror watch list!
No…, “infant crying” is now an antecedent condition of future terror. In keeping with the newly emerging science of pre-crime, Homeland Security is rightfully honing its ability to target potential future terrorists by focusing on incipient behavioral tendencies. Logic clearly suggests that crying infants of today are potential malcontents of tomorrow as it reasonable to conclude that all current malcontents once cried when they were babies! It is only a matter of time before a lactate addicted, socially degenerative, dirty diaper bomber attempts to bring a passenger airliner down. And, because inflight breastfeeding is a clear morale booster for these babes in arms, nursing mothers should also be held culpable for their latent potential for aiding and abetting terror. I am quite certain that TSA officers everywhere will enthusiastically endorse a white (latex) glove policy of more closely probe the potential of every woman to give in-flight encouragement to these nipple-biting che-rabs.
The United States of America was founded on the prionciple that what can hurt one can hurt all.
The pimped out whores of congress and the pimped out corrupt courts have abandoned the sanctity and sacradness of “each and every”. Given the extend of the corruption (including the revelations of the Panama Papers) it is predictable that the U.S. will eventually devolved into an armed revolt just like Syria.
I think the lawsuit would be more effective if there were some non-muslum plaintiffs.
(WLI) Watch Listed Individual, a term known to victims of FBI’s STASI style harassment called GangStalking. Profiting ex agency contractors.
Techniques include, sneek a peek into residence, total surveillance and even use of military DEW’s which in long term are lethal.
Victims are often unaware of targeting, as Fusion Centers act as judge, jury and executioner.
Most people with a brain might wonder why someone on these blacklists isn’t just arrested if there is real evidence against him or her? Intelligent people may also wonder why we aren’t arresting the government officials that placed them on these Blacklists. Shouldn’t there be a risk of criminal penalty for the officials that defame people like this?
That’s the whole point of this fraud – there isn’t real evidence or real sworn testimony against them – these people are Blacklisted – treated like 2nd Class Citizens without charge, without judge, without jury and without a guilty verdict.
Maybe we can arrest the government officials participating in this defamation campaign or go after their personal assets.
I seem to not have a brain then. If poeple on the blacklists are not arrested, it’s because everybody there is no firm evidence that they commited a crime, but that the likelihood that they might attempt something is relatively higher than for the rest of the population. For example, if s.o. went to syria (or is highly suspected to have done so) and legally purchased weapons and chemical component, ect.. , you can’t arrest him/her, but you might indeed want extra screening and even targeted information gathering about this person. As a matter of fact, the problem here is that they base their security only on “names” without even providing security officers with a picture to check likelihood of identity. The other problem is that they focus on quantity instead of quality, as usual. A list of 54k names is also unsearchable.
Why we don’t arrest officials that placed them on these Blacklists?? BEcause for the most part it is certainly a machine and only their names, not themsleves, are in the list.
“Why we don’t arrest officials that placed them on these Blacklists?? ”
INDEED.
In 1775 the colonists killed those of the empire who were abusing them. Today there is no defense against government persons gone bad – no recourse – the courts are all pimped out and owned by the corporatist thieves. THIS IS THE ACHILLES HEAL OF AMERICA.
AMERICA WILL FAIL.
MK take out a calculator and compare the number of people blacklisted (on multiple lists) versus the number of real terror-convictions.
The vast majority on these lists are not dangerous at all and there is no real evidence to prove otherwise.
“Preemption Policies” are blatantly unconstitutional and will eventually be overturned by the courts. Communists and despots practice preemption policies but it’s totally illegal in the U.S. Judges just haven’t outlawed all of them yet.
MK
Were you aware that all the members of black lives matter, all tor or linux users, all the readers of wikileaks or the intercept are being tracked and/or labeled as potential domestic terrorist threats right along with domestic antiwar protesters, domestic animal rights activists, domestic government transparency advocates and domestic environmental groups?
That population of politically active social security eligible frequent voters includes some politically active muslims to be sure but the fact that the vast majority of such activists in DHS Fusion Center Databases natinwide are neither muslim or recently returning from an overseas terrorist hotbed.
A whole bunch of innocent Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim americans in there are initially targetted and blacklisted in house at the DHS and then some subcontracted out to minor league local or state versions of Palantir or HB Gary.
Cointelpro 1.0 was about destroying the lives of successful american activists discreetly by any means necessary. Hoovers primary Cointelpro targets were Communists and Brown Americans but he made his bones (and his career) with files on the ruling political class.
Of course
RB: I totally agree that the list, or the statistical program and the data input should be oversight by a magistrate, or at least a commission from the congress.
However, small probability doesn’t mean the concept of a ‘watch list shouldn’t be used at all. For the case of Beglium for example, it’s by searching in the “potential” list that they found a nest two days before the attacks. They had a warrant to search the house, but information about these poeple were pre-existing. Anyone who went to Syria should be in the list.
Christian: Yes, we are all tracked and assign to specific ‘risk’ category. As a vegetarian linux-user (including phone ;-) intercept-wikileaks reader with no television, I am certainly there too. However, we are too many and so far the rule of law still applies. Hoover didn’t see the burglary coming, neither did Clapper caught Snowden. Don’t undermind us, we are stronger than you think.
If they were so overwhelmy powerfull, they wouldn’t stop babies at airport. They are drawning in their own sea of data. But I still think poeple with high risk of attacks should be detected and spied on. Don’t forget it doesn’t take many attackes for countries going mad. Look at the mess the US did after 9/11 !! Animal spirit is there, poeple fear and vote for whoever is harder on the ‘ennemy’. Preventing the crazy reaction of powerfull countries is top 1 priority
MK:
If it can be done in a constitutional manner that doesn’t result in East German style blacklisting, it might be worth debating.
In real practice, it’s nearly impossible to “watch the watchers”. If government bureaucrats and their contractors are allowed to snoop on private citizens, without strong oversight, they will abuse the citizens they are snooping on. Even if that oversight existed today, it wouldn’t last long.
MK
Congratulations on being one of the “far to many” who believe the “rule of law” can be applied to those on “nonconfrontational blacklists”
Since babies and small children have always been classified as fun sized terrorists by the US government’s drone operators it should come as no surprise that they are continuing to be kept under close watch. Nobody should ever under estimate the threat to National Security that babies represent with the possibility that they maybe wearing suicide dypers. These mini insurgents have also been known to conceal their weapons of mass destruction (rattles and soft toys) in their prams, and can launch them aggressively at any time, endangering the lives of unsuspecting US citizens. They also speak in a foreign language, baby babble, which US Intelligence agencies have concluded, after years of ass surveillance on their Fisher Price mobiles, maybe a secret terrorist code.
Thanks for the info. A few years ago for about 2 year period, I always had SSSS on my tickets and was subject to extra screening. I never knew why and still don’t to this day. I no longer have that problem but it is interesting how a nobody like be got on that list.
Too bad someone hasn’t posted, as a “public service” of course…a list on the net, of the address’s of every State and USG, Congress members, Judges and agency officials, prison admin, CEO’s of all major corporations and banking institutions. I’ll start with this…
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-sipsey-street-public-service.html
terrorist watch list… what can go wrong ?
The real question is whether being muslims is a criteria to be on that list , which would be discriminatory and illegal.
Now if there are several “abdel abdelslam” (from brussels attacks), I don’t think it would be over-the-top to have extra screening of all travelers called “abdel Abdelslam”. And if most of the “abdel abdelslam” are muslims, this is still not discriminatory. I think we can assume that there is a homonym “DOE” who is also on the list for a specific reason which is unknow to us. And as usual, TSA did a poor job by stupidly applying all the rules to an infant.
Terrorist babies. They’re just trying to rattle you.
I am not sure you have the story right. Yesterday I had SSSS stamped on my boarding pass for a flight from MUC to IAD because I had first flown from TXL to MUC. As the latter was a domestic flight, security was “normal”, meaning my stuff went through the Xray machine and I went through a metal detector. But for flights to the US, one has to go through another screening, and so the markings on my boarding pass flagged me for going through that screening, rather than simply going straight onto the aircraft.
I know that my status is not watchlisted because on my flight over, I went through a relaxed screening process, courtesy the airline.
Maybe. Maybe not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Selection
Author does not have his facts right – or his sources are wrong. Either way SSSS does not mean you are on any list. All it means is that you have been selected for additional random screening. There was actually a newspaper article when TSA first started using SSSS – frequent fliers found out they could simply go back to a self service machine, reprint the boarding pass and most likely would not get the SSSS again.
The U.S. is disseminating this list all over the place, to foreign countries riddled with crooked officials. So why hasn’t The Intercept published the list?