Innocent until proven guilty, and free will to pursue happiness? Just who determines this for you: “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.” What constitutes “terrorist” activity can range from damaging government property to dismantling computers owned by financial institutions. The report makes little distinction between “known” and “suspected” terrorists, but grants government officials the authority to “nominate” individuals to the watch list, based solely on “fragmentary information.” Ryan Devereaux, co-writer of The Intercept’s report, told Newsweek that the nominating agency has a wide-ranging group of intelligence agents and members of the military, but the information itself is disclosed with local law enforcement. The immediate family of suspected terrorists—children, spouses, siblings and parents—can be placed on a watch list without any evidence suggesting they are engaging in terrorist activity. “Associates”—meaning someone who has any kind of defined relationship with a suspected terrorist—can be placed on a watch list as well. Anyone the government deems as having “a possible nexus” to terrorism but lacking “derogatory information” can meet the reasonable suspicion standard. What a “possible nexus” might be is unspecified. Rational inferences? Just whose imagination are we to rely on?
Posted on: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:14:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015