Some federal air marshals are fabricating reports of suspicious activity on innocent people in order to meet a quota, causing them to be listed on terrorist watch lists, according to several marshals.
The reports, known as Surveillance Detection Reports, are supposed to be filed whenever an air marshal sees suspicious activity which may indicate a terrorist conducting surveillance of potential targets. But a quota of one report per month, without which air marshals might not receive raises, promotions or choice assignments, is leading some of them to report completely innocuous activities of completely innocent people.
That’s right, there aren’t enough terrorists flying around, so the government has to completely make them up, calling innocent people potential terrorists. And who do you suppose loses under this scheme?
“The people we’re supposed to protect — the American public,” an air marshal said.
What kind of impact would it have for a flying individual to be named in an SDR?
“That could have serious impact … They could be placed on a watch list. They could wind up on databases that identify them as potential terrorists or a threat to an aircraft. It could be very serious,” said Don Strange, a former agent in charge of air marshals in Atlanta. He lost his job attempting to change policies inside the agency.
That’s why several air marshals object to a July 2004 memo from top management in the Las Vegas office, a memo that reminded air marshals of the SDR requirement.
The body of the memo said, “Each federal air marshal is now expected to generate at least one SDR per month.” — KMGH
I’ve got a better idea. Let’s just put everyone on the terrorist watch list and quit with the charades already.
(I had received tips of this from multiple sources, but was unable to publish until now, since I was busy trying not to get shot at by this guy today.)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Dana Hanley
Jul 25, 2006
I saw that last night and thought of you. You have to be suspicious enough to have landed on some list during your flight…(you were flying, right?)
Michael Hampton
Jul 25, 2006
No, I wasn’t flying, which is why I had to deal with the sniper in Indiana. I apparently missed him by no more than an hour when he struck up near Chicago early today.
Dana Hanley
Jul 25, 2006
Oh, well, glad you missed the sniper, anyway. And the air marshalls.
Rob Miller
Jul 26, 2006
I saw independent commentary that likened the permanent consequences being put on these lists to those of a traffic stop which doesn’t even result in a warning, but I can’t seem to find the link anymore.
Sure, it’s really stupid and indicative of most of the stupidity involved in the “war on terror”, but it is being sensationalised somewhat :)
Dana Hanley
Jul 26, 2006
But what if you are just weird? Like my brother? He’d be picked up by every air marshall as some suspicious character. How many times can you draw attention before they start to look like a pattern? I personally object more to the principle of it, anyway. Some things just shouldn’t have a quota. I would be quite happy to know that fewer than one terrorist could be found on any given flight in any given month.
And how long will it be before we hear a report that however many thousands of “suspicious” individuals have been found flying around on these airplanes necessitates increased security measures although a good deal of the suspicious individuals were determined to be so to meet quotas?
I think that qualifies as a run on and if you ever sort it out, congratulations.
TheMan
Jul 27, 2006
I think maybe I have ended up on one of those lists. On my last few trips I was singled out at EVERY SINGLE AIRPORT. I got the full treatment searched at every checkpoint. The pat down, they tore apart my bags and wiped and tested just about everything in them. snapped pictures of me. If I wasn’t in a rush to get on the plain I would have made a stink about it. The whole being detained without warrant, illegally searched just about every right was ignored.
Actually this reminds me I need to file a report to the airlines some things came up missing out of my bags. Since they were searched at every checkpoint (in a couple of places that meant 3 of these “Random” checks.) I don’t know how random they can be since I was checked at every one of them. Statistically an impossibility.
So I think that there might be a little more consequence than the random police stop for a broken tail light.
Also as Dana said how many hits before they determine there is a pattern and now you are on a FBI watch list having every email you write analyzed every phone conversation listened to? How many hits before they use one of their new powers to fight terrorism to detain you without arrest or trial for a few days/weeks/months?