The US Government's Guidebook For Declaring You A Terrorist

[Mike]

Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Deveraux, over at The Intercept have a giant scoop: the full 166-page guidebook that US law enforcement uses to declare someone a terrorist who deserves to be on one of its various watchlists from the no-fly list to the "terrorist screening database." We've had plenty of stories about the no fly list and the TSDB, and the ridiculous lengths that the US government has gone to to keep anyone from knowing if or why they're in any of these databases -- leading to a series of lawsuits from individuals who were put on that list under very questionable circumstances.

We were happy last month to see that the process for getting off of these watchlists was declared unconstitutional, but the lawsuits over these watchlists suggest that they are prone to abuse and error. We were particularly disturbed to find out in a recent lawsuit that the US government actually has a secret exception to reasonable suspicion for putting people on the list.

The document released by The Intercept is quite revealing, and shows that President Obama has massively expanded the criteria for getting people onto the list. In fact, as the report notes, the President "quietly approved" an expansion "authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist."

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.

As you might imagine, given all the stories about people being put on various watchlists even though they're clearly not terrorists, the guidelines are crazy expansive:

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.

And obviously this goes way beyond just boarding (or not boarding) airplanes. As the report notes, if you're pulled over for speeding and the police run your name, if you're on the watchlist, the police will get a notification, leading them to automatically think that you're a suspected terrorist. The guidelines also contradict themselves directly. At first it says that:

To meet the REASONABLE SUSPICION standard, the NOMINATOR, based on the totality of the circumstances, must rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.

Okay. So you need to have a factual basis for reasonable suspicion, right? Wrong:

In determining whether a REASONABLE SUSPICION exists, due weight should be given to the specific reasonable inferences that a NOMINATOR is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience and not on unfounded suspicions or hunches. Although irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary, to be reasonable, suspicion should be as clear and as fully developed as circumstances permit.

So, it can't just be a hunch. It has to be a really good hunch seems to be the lesson.

The report also likely reveals the "secret" exceptions to reasonable suspicion that the judge refused to reveal in the Rahinah Ibrahim case we wrote about. She was kept on the watchlist despite there being no reasonable suspicion. One of the exceptions is the "family member" loophole (which some had suggested was likely the issue in the comments to our story about Ibrahim). But it appears the exceptions are much broader:

There are a number of loopholes for putting people onto the watchlists even if reasonable suspicion cannot be met.

One is clearly defined: The immediate family of suspected terrorists ”their spouses, children, parents, or siblings ”may be watchlisted without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity. But another loophole is quite broad ”associates” who have a defined relationship with a suspected terrorist, but whose involvement in terrorist activity is not known. A third loophole is broader still ”individuals with “a possible nexus” to terrorism, but for whom there is not enough “derogatory information” to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

And then there's the fact that the new "threat-based expedited upgrade" program, which was put in place following the US failing to notice that the famed "underwear bomber" got on his plane despite being on the watchlist. So, rather than recognize that the list was broken, the administration just added a new category, allowing a single White House official the unilateral power to elevate entire "categories of people" into a special list for extra scrutiny.

This extraordinary power for “categorical watchlisting” ”otherwise known as profiling” is vested in the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, a position formerly held by CIA Director John Brennan that does not require Senate confirmation.

The rulebook does not indicate what “categories of people” have been subjected to threat-based upgrades. It is not clear, for example, whether a category might be as broad as military-age males from Yemen. The guidelines do make clear that American citizens and green card holders are subject to such upgrades, though government officials are required to review their status in an “expedited” procedure. Upgrades can remain in effect for 72 hours before being reviewed by a small committee of senior officials. If approved, they can remain in place for 30 days before a renewal is required, and can continue “until the threat no longer exists.”

Basically, as most people suspected, it appears the government has broad and, until now, secret powers to effectively ruin someone's life by placing them on one of these watchlists... with no legitimate way to get off.

Originally Published: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:35:00 GMT
source

[Mike]

We've already written about The Intercept's publication of the US government's guidelines for declaring you a possible terrorist subject to extra scrutiny whenever you run into a government official. But we wanted to do a second post on the part that focuses on just what kind of extra scrutiny you get if you're on the list. Basically, it's dig through every aspect of this person's life that you can:

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.

In the wake of last month's Wurie decision at the Supreme Court, I'm curious how much of that is now violating the subject's 4th Amendment rights... It seems likely that at least someone is going to challenge these rules.

Originally Published: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:05:53 GMT
source

[Mike]

Having already discussed The Intercept's publication of the federal government's guidelines for declaring people terrorists to put on its various watchlists (including the infamous "no fly list"), it's raising some serious questions about why the DOJ had been fighting so hard to keep these guidelines from coming out. As we've discussed, in basically any case challenging the various government watchlists, the DOJ has freaked out and claimed "state secrets" to try to get the cases thrown out entirely.

Just a few months ago, Attorney General Eric Holder directly claimed that revealing these guidelines would be helping the terrorists. In that legal filing, Holder does the "state secrets" dance and then says:

I agree with the FBI that the Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed, for the reasons discussed in the FBI's classified declaration, could cause significant harm to national security.... If the Guidance were released, it would provide a clear roadmap to undermine the Government's screening efforts, a key counterterrorism measure, and thus, its disclosure reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to national security.

Of course, now that the Watchlisting Guidance is out, we can take a look and see if that's actually true. And... Holder's statements, not surprisingly, appear to be completely bogus. The Guidelines are so vague and so broad that it gives no real indication of how to get around them or whether or not any particular person is likely to be placed on the list.

What the guidelines do show, however, is the level of extra scrutiny people on the list are subject to. And, as we noted, much of that certainly appears to violate the 4th Amendment (or, at the very least, open itself up to a pretty clear 4th Amendment challenge in the courts). So, once again, it seems like Holder's real reason to declare "state secrets" had little to do with "national security" and a hell of a lot to do with "DOJ security" in keeping its illegal and unconstitutional practices from further public and judicial scrutiny.

Originally Published: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:09:00 GMT
source

[stormium]

i as well will concede to the point that now "THE" guidelines have been published, terrorist will know how to circumvent the identification process and avoid being listed... but it's still bullshit. the same argument can be used like this:

government: "we aren't going to tell you how we know that you are guilty of downloading an illegal copy of the cable guy because then you would know how we conduct our investigate our cases and that would undermine our ability to do our job."

you: "are guilty? what happened to innocent until proven guilty by a court of law?"

government: "what? innocent until proven guilty by a court of law? witchcraft! stand right there. don't move. i need to go get a stick."

*thwack*thwack*thwack*

government: "are you kidding me? you flinched! that's resisting arrest!"

the fact of the matter is that people are being judged and are having their rights taken away without due process. yes, yes... i know... flying on a plane and meeting a politician is a privilege, not a right; or is it? well, the flying on a plane part anyway... meeting a politician is probably some form of cruel and unusual punishment. i'd rather watch lost girl than meet my local congressmen.

the way i see it is that if the government is going to place you on any list called the 'terrorist watch list,' or any of their other lists, you have a right to face your accuser. fuck, you have a right to know if you are on a an official government list.

we have a right to know.

[Mike]

Back in July, we wrote about the Intercept releasing a leaked copy of the US law enforcement guidelines for putting someone on the no fly list. There have been a series of lawsuits recently concerning the no fly list, and the government has basically done everything possible, practically to the point of begging judges, to avoid having those cases move forward. So far, that's failed miserably. The Rahinah Ibrahim case, for example, showed how a Stanford PhD student with no terrorist connections was put on the list by someone checking the wrong box on a form (and then was kept on a separate terrorist watchlist under a secret exception to the rule that there be "reasonable suspicion.") In that case, like every other, the DOJ claimed "state secrets" in trying to get the case dismissed. There have also been cases about the feds using the threat of being put on the no fly list to force unwilling people to "become informants." An important ruling back in July said that the process for getting off the list is unconstitutional.

In another case involving the list, Gulet Mohamed is challenging the fact that he's on the list, and the DOJ has done its usual "state secrets, throw out the case" claim. The judge, so far, isn't buying it, and has asked the DOJ to reveal how it puts people on the list. Specifically, Judge Anthony Trenga asked the DOJ to provide:

[A]ll documents, and a summary of any testimony, expert or otherwise, that the United States would present at an evidentiary hearing or trial to establish that inclusion on the No Fly List, as applied to United States citizens who are not under indictment or otherwise charged with a crime and who have not been previously convicted of a crime of violence, is necessary, and the least restrictive method available, to ensure the safety of commercial aircraft from threats of terrorism, and that no level of enhanced screening would be adequate for that purpose.

In a filing last week, Mohamed's lawyers pointed to the leaked guidelines, and the DOJ responded by saying, "Huh? Document? What document? We don't know of any such document, and deny its existence." Or something to that effect:

With respect to Plaintiff’s points, Defendants do not acknowledge the authenticity of the purportedly leaked documents, and will respond to the proposed Notice in due course.

The DOJ has now gone further and said it still doesn't think it should have to produce the information because it's still claiming state secrets, and it doesn't think the judge should have to look at the documents in question to determine if the state secrets demand is appropriate. Yes, they're arguing that the judge should determine if something can properly be called a state secret without revealing what the information is. Actually, the DOJ is going even further, arguing that it's inappropriate to look at the alleged state secrets to determine if the state secrets privilege applies.

The requested submission would not assist the Court in deciding the pending Motion to Dismiss because it is not an appropriate means to test the scope of the assertion of the State Secrets privilege, does not pertain to the claims in the Complaint, and does not address the appropriate legal standard for substantive due process.

Got that? The Court should just agree that it's a state secret and shut down the entire case. The DOJ pretends first that the necessary documents haven't already been leaked to the world, and second acts like it's crazy for a judge to want to actually see the documents before determining if it's really a "state secret" they're protecting.

Of course, as we noted, when the document leaked it seemed pretty clear that the DOJ was lying when it said it wouldn't reveal them because of state secrets. It doesn't want to reveal them, because they reveal how the process almost certainly violates the 4th Amendment. Rather than protecting "national security," the attempts to hide the details of the list are very much about protecting "DOJ security."

Originally Published: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:40:34 GMT
source