July 28th, 2014

Obama Approves Substantial Expansion of Terrorist Watch Lists: “Concrete Facts Are Not Necessary”


This article was written by Mac Slavo and originally published at SHTFplan.com

Amid an outcry from Americans criticizing the Obama Administration over the possibility that terrorists may be among the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the United States without documentation, the Department of Homeland Security has instead turned its scrutiny on American citizens.

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.”

The Intercept

watchlisting-guidance

The recently declassified Watchlisting Guidance rule book issued in 2013 and developed by members of 19 law enforcement agencies that include the FBI, NSA, CIA, and NSA, outlines the rules for placing individuals, including American citizens, on the various watch lists currently in use. As noted by The Intercept, the rules, much like America’s secretive anti-terrorism laws, are vague and often contradict each other.

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.

“Instead of a watchlist limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future,” says Hina Shamsi, the head of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “On that dangerous theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out.”

The guidelines for who is or is not a terrorist are now so vague that any American could potentially be added to a list for something as menial as knowing someone who has committed an activity deemed to be of terrorist nature. And as has been highlighted previously, those activities could range from making a hand gesture that looks like a gun or manufacturing your own gold and silver coins.

The newly expanded guidelines have completely redefined terrorism, turning even innocuous crimes or suspicions of crimes into activity that is now equivalent to traditional terrorist activities such as bombings and hijackings.

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.

This combination—a broad definition of what constitutes terrorism and a low threshold for designating someone a terrorist—opens the way to ensnaring innocent people in secret government dragnets.

What’s even more mindboggling than the actual crimes and activities for which an American can now be designated a terrorist are the rules for how law enforcement agencies are supposed to place names on the watchlists.

The heart of the document revolves around the rules for placing individuals on a watchlist. “All executive departments and agencies,” the document says, are responsible for collecting and sharing information on terrorist suspects with the National Counterterrorism Center. It sets a low standard—”reasonable suspicion“—for placing names on the watchlists, and offers a multitude of vague, confusing, or contradictory instructions for gauging it. In the chapter on “Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria”—even the title is hard to digest—the key sentence on reasonable suspicion offers little clarity:

“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.”

The rulebook makes no effort to define an essential phrase in the passage—”articulable intelligence or information.” After stressing that hunches are not reasonable suspicion and that “there must be an objective factual basis” for labeling someone a terrorist, it goes on to state that no actual facts are required:

“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.”

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.

According to the rule book, no actual evidence or concrete facts of wrong doing are required. In fact, according to the rules, even a single White House administration member can, for whatever reason they choose, add entire categories of people, including family members, friends and associates of suspected individuals, to a watch list.

It gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to elevate entire “categories of people” whose names appear in the larger databases onto the no fly or selectee lists. This can occur, the guidelines state, when there is a “particular threat stream” indicating that a certain type of individual may commit a terrorist act.

This means that you merely knowing someone, whether in person or in a virtual space like social media networks, could lead to you being placed on a terror watchlist.

In a previous article we facetiously opined that at the rate at which terror watchlists have been expanded since 2003, the number of people on the lists will exceed the U.S. population by 2019. The new rules implemented under the watchful eye of the Obama administration suggest that such a possibility is no longer a joking matter.

Though Americans who have been added to terror watchlists are currently faced with the inconvenience of restricted travel on public transportation systems and increased government scrutiny into their personal lives, how long before government officials start rounding up suspects, or those suspected of being suspects, under anti-terrorism laws like the Patriot Act? Under those guidelines, as well as those outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act, not only can American citizens be held without charge or trial indefinitely for mere suspicion of terrorist activities, but so too can they be assassinated by drone strikes or other government action.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin couldn’t have dreamed of the power that currently resides in the hands of the U.S. government and its subordinate agencies.

Editor’s Note: If you’re reading this or have shared it with others, or if you are suspected of knowing somebody who is suspected of reading this or sharing it with others, you may now be on a terror watchlist.

Full report at The Intercept
Full Watchlisting Guidance Rulebook (166 Pages)




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

8 Responses to “Obama Approves Substantial Expansion of Terrorist Watch Lists: “Concrete Facts Are Not Necessary””

  1. 1
    chuck Says:

    our government has gone completely rogue…

  2. 2
    Thomas D. Kendrick Says:

    Anybody remember the Tom Cruz movie “Minority Report”? When it first came out I commented to my wife “That’s exactly the way Liberals think, and the ridiculous extent to which they’ll take things if they’re not stopped soon”. Well, Hon’, the day is here.

  3. 3
    Cal Says:

    Guess obama (no caps deliberate) forgot that he DID take an Oath that makes him PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for his actions while impersonating a US president when having NOT met the requirements to be a US presidential candidate. Breaking that Oath is both a felony (I know, another one) and makes him no longer meet the requirements of even impersonating a US president as he swore that he would PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION – and that makes him responsible for doing so.

    Show me where in the US Constitution and in everything that is in Pursuance thereof it – the SUPREME LAW of this nation- where it says that those who serve within the federal government may arbitrarily decide that they can use “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” or “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” or to broaden “the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information””.

    The US Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights plus Article VI says otherwise:
    Article VI: “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

    It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    The US Constitution is a LIMITING document. It is a ‘contract’ that describes exactly what those who serve within the federal government is ALLOWED to do depending on what branch they are located under. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reinforces and makes clear those serving are forbidden specific things, and limited to the duties listed.

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

    Amendment I: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW (because the other two branches are FORBIDDEN TO MAKE LEGISLATION) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    (”All” means every single time, always) -> Amendment VI: IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIMES SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    (Yet we have a judge doing just that – sent to OK) –> Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, THE RIGHT OF A TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO FACT TRIED BY A JURY, SHALL BE OTHERWISE BE RE-EXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED. –> (Can you say “torture” and “Guantanamo”, people being sent to foreign nations, etc).

    Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. –> (Hunting, fishing, gardening, having pets and farm animals, water, air, traveling locally/within the US/to foreign nations, building a
    home, how you use your land as long as it does NOT cause another harm, etc)

    Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    It is “NULL and VOID”. Those enforcing that “color of law” would be attacking US citizens, making war upon them, as they are doing wth other non laws here in the USA.

    Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

  4. 4
    Airb0rne4325 Says:

    The 4A has been slaughtered and sacrificed in the name of security.

    And this admin still has 2+yrs left.

  5. 5
    Ron Says:

    Cal;

    Maybe you can refresh my memory as I can not seem to locate the actual info on the net. Did not the Oath get botched when it was taken in public and them later behind closed doors reissued by the CHief Justice? Also, was not the Koran also used in the proceedings?

    Do we know for sure that he actually did take the accurate, complete and lawful Oath?

  6. 6
    Cal Says:

    @ Ron,
    Assuming that you are referring to “Guess obama (no caps deliberate) forgot that he DID take an Oath that makes him PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for his actions while impersonating a US president…”

    I said that he DID take the oath. But he is not now, nor has he ever been a US president because he was never a lawful (legal) 2008 / 2012 presidential candidate. He was put into place with fraudulent documents (not just his forged SS, etc):

    The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include language stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form? (Do not make the error and think that the Republicans have not done the same, they have.)

    South Bend, Indiana jury has that election fraud put BOTH President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.

    Sorry, no lawful (legal) presidential candidate then CANNOT be a US President. We only have 3 requirements for those to be candidates. Obama is an imposter, he is impersonating a US president.

    But he lawfully (legally) willingly took the Oath which makes him PERSONALLY responsible to PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION.

    Does that make it more clear for you? 

  7. 7
    Cal Says:

    Sorry for missing this Ron.

    @ Ron, I do not personally know if he lawfully (legally) took the Oath.

  8. 8
    William Carter Says:

    Whatever…

    Enough talk!!!

    MOLON LABE, TRAITORS AND GLOBALIST SCUM BAGS!!!

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148