It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Innocent People Being Put on Watch List

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Some Federal Air Marshals have been told they must submit at least one Surveillance Detection Report, SDR, a month as a quota. Without meeting this quota they will not be eligible for promotion or special assignments. Being named on the SDR could place these people on the Federal Watch List. You cold be put on the SDR report for something like taking a picture on an air craft. Some Air Marshals have said that actions in reports are even made up for the purpose of meeting the quota.
 



www.thedenverchannel.com
"Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal.


These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system.

"Do these reports have real life impacts on the people who are identified as potential terrorists?" 7NEWS Investigator Tony Kovaleski asked.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This system or something similar to this system is used in almost every walk of life. I don't like it but you probably cannot get away from it. I think it is wrong that someone could get on a Terror watch list that easily or possibly for something that did not happen or was completely blown out of proportion just so the Marshal can get a raise. One way to try to fix this would be to find out if you are on the watch list. But as the article points out that is supposed to be secrete. The quota system will never go completely away but if it could just be made a small part of performance review things might be a lot better.

Related News Links:
www.thedenverchannel.com
g roups.google.com
www.thedenverchannel.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: US Air Marshal Shoots Passenger on Flight from Columbia
U.S. to Add 5,000 Armed Air Marshals
Soon your going to be in a detention center




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Now this is mighty disturbing. I had heard about the "no fly" lists a while back. But now it seems that they have ratcheted up a few notches. I wonder how much more can we take before we are catalogued and classified for everything we do?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Really sad.


It's sick. When I go to an airport, I first question what would my reaction be if I was on the list. How would I react, what would I tell my family/friends when they saw I was still in town? "Mom, I'm on the terrorist watch list" Not going to happen!

I continue my life, and I work with peace groups, and I won't let them deter me. I don't fear being on that list, I only fear being inconvenienced constantly.

But if we're going to sell our souls to the government so that "they can protect us", then I suppose we might as well get used to it.

Good find, sad circumstances to report.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
This is exactly why I will not fly again. Unless some great turn around takes place in this government/police control state that our country is in, I will find another way to travel. I haven't flown since 9/11. And it's NOT because I'm afraid of terrorism.

Soon, they will be checking papers at every state line. The government is encroaching into our privacy more and more every day. :shk:

I am embarrassed and ashamed.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Whoa, I had a flashback to Stasi, the former East German Secret Police. I'll never again tell a flight attendant I got the wrong soda.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And it's NOT because I'm afraid of terrorism.


It’s because of the bad food, isn’t it? Yeah they’re really cutting corners nowadays.


But yeah they should come up with another way to validate and or asses the Air Marshall’s if meeting this quote isn’t possible. Perhaps they can’t justify the Air Marshall program if this quota isn’t met? Now, personally speaking I’ve flown numerous times since 9/11, usually intercontinental travel and haven't been bothered much beyond the more thorough search procedures, but those are to be expected after 9/11.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
The Air Marshall program should probably be scrapped.

The goal should be to identify and neutralize possible terrorists before they ever get on the plane.

It's a lot easier to do that on the ground, anyway. Reinforce the cockpit doors to the nth degree, and arm the pilots (most are ex-military anyway) for good measure. I think it makes little sense to have a swiss cheese security operation at the airport, and compensate for that with armed men disguised as passengers.

The LAST thing we want is to have a shootout at 30k feet.

The fact that these guys work on quotas is not surprising. The security apparatus in this country has reached ridiculous proportions. I hate the 'logic' that keeps this charade going.

I don't fly either, well..once since 9/11 and never again. I read all about these tests that they fail, time and time again, they miss knives and guns and bombs, routinely. But I gotta take off my shoes and get probed by some half-wit with a beeping wand? Screw that.

It's not worth the hassle, it really isn't. I've changed my lifestyle to the point where I don't need to fly. If I have to go overseas in the future, I'll probably end up in a rowboat. At least I'll have my dignity, freezing to death in the middle of the Atlantic. :/



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But yeah they should come up with another way to validate and or asses the Air Marshall’s if meeting this quote isn’t possible. Perhaps they can’t justify the Air Marshall program if this quota isn’t met?


This is the key, WestPoint. Bureaucracy breeds paperwork. Management wants a measurable assessment for advancement, paycheck, program justification, etc. It needs something to measure as an indicator of performance. Unless you're making widgets or phone calls, for ex, how is this job performance rated? Creative writing or overstatement has apparently been used for this assessment.

Maybe they just need to use seat time; personally, I'ld be glad just to know my flight had an AM. How does El Al do it?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure--imagine, WyrdeOne, if the airlines had hardened the cockpit doors as they were told to do 20 years before when there was traditional hi-jacking. I guess it was just too costly to do so--a penny saved is a penny earned. Traditional hi-jacking tapered off, doors weren't hardened--9/11.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The notion of having quotas is absurd. Even though this is a perfect example of gratuitious abuse, there will be some on here that defend it.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Terrorist quotas.

So these guys need to ID potential terrorists or lose their jobs. And the government gets a ready-made pool of scapegoats.

Charming.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The irony is that any truly suspicious incidents will be lost in the mix of millions of bogus quota-filling reports. Good one.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Okay, but are you sure they can't file a 'negative report'? Many Government agencies have to file required reports, even if it is a 'negative report'.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Perhaps they can’t justify the Air Marshall program if this quota isn’t met?


West Point
I do think you got it right !!
I think the whole thing that got this started all comes donwn to the almight buck. Something else that I think we will always have in our society that I dont really see changeing.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

It's a lot easier to do that on the ground, anyway. Reinforce the cockpit doors to the nth degree, and arm the pilots (most are ex-military anyway) for good measure. I think it makes little sense to have a swiss cheese security operation at the airport, and compensate for that with armed men disguised as passengers.


REPLY: The idea of extra strong cockpit doors was in fact recommended by Algore after investigations of a previous air disaster (I forget which). Then I read the entire bill, and discovered that an implimentation date had not been included due to campaign contributions from the airlines. It might have prevented 911. Pretty sad.

Using air marshalls is a good idea, and I'm glad they are using them. The idea of armed pilots make the most sense, but many are opposed to the idea, at the same time forgetting that if a pilot "went crazy" he wouldn't need a damn gun..... he can fly the aircraft into the ground! Politicians!!!

What I would like to remind eveyone here is that, although much of what happens regarding looking for possible terrorists in our midst might seem prohibitive or intrusive, "we" have to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only have to "right" once.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

by niteboy82:

I continue my life, and I work with peace groups, and I won't let them deter me. I don't fear being on that list, I only fear being inconvenienced constantly.

But if we're going to sell our souls to the government so that "they can protect us", then I suppose we might as well get used to it.


REPLY: It is indeed a hassle at the airports, and the idea of suspicious people being surveiled does seem intrusive. But, as I mentioned in my post, above, our security people have to try and be right 100% of the time; terrorists only have to be right once.

As always, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The same people that complain about the uses of various types of security methods are the ones who will bitch the most when something bad happens, and we're attacked again.

I'm not knocking your support of peace activities or ideals; but they're nothing new or unique. Peace activists were around even in Germany back in the day (Hitler), and you see where it got them.

Still, I have to ask you as I've asked others: Could you please name me one time in the past 200 years where lasting peace has come as a result of negotiations, appeasement and negotiations? I'll save you some time looking.... you can't. Lasting peace has only come through overwhelming victory. It's not a result of lack of common sense, it's the result of human nature, as there will always be those who feel they are born to be leaders through the subjugation of their people.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Well so far Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel come immediately to mind. Cyprus had a long and bloody recent past but negotiations gave the people on both the Greek and Turkish sides enough breathing room to realize that they did not want anymore violence. And northern Ireland is slowly working its way towards a lasting peace....hasn't gotten there yet but its a hell of a lot better than it has been.

So Zappa...can you tell me when war and violence have ever solved anything?

So long as there are people saying peace will never work, it won't.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

by grover:

REPLY: Nice references, although I did forget to add "....negotiations/appeasement" with "tyrants and dictators", to which your two examples would not apply. Forgetting that, it's only two references.



So Zappa...can you tell me when war and violence have ever solved anything?


REPLY: The list would be too long, I'm afraid, but I'd mention: Between young America and Britain; WW1; WW2; need I go on?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
WW1 was fueled among other things by the resentments caused by the Franco/Prussian war of 1876 which was the last spasm in the wars of German unification which was kicked off by the Napoleonic wars and the death of the Holy Roman Empire. WW1 resolved nothing and was carried over into WW2 with a 20 year hiatus in between. WW2 merely defeated the Nazi's and the Japanese but aspects of it was carried over into the cold war, Korea and Vietnam. Aspects of the cold war fueled the resentments expressed by the various "terrorist" groups such as Al Qeada and the Chetnian seperatists and so it goes ad nausem.

As for the U.S. and Great Britian, the war of 1812 was a direct response to the Revolution. Eventually yes, we came to realize that we were better off as allies but in all reality, it was an exception. Also revolutions are rarely revisited, so that makes the war of 1812 also an exception.

Sorry Zappa you failed to make your case.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

by grover:

Sorry Zappa you failed to make your case.


REPLY: The causes you stated not withstanding, you asked where war and violence was a solution, to which I correctly responded.

However, you have yet to provide what I originally asked (corrected for inclusion, as mentioned in a previour post): in the past 200 years, where has lasting peace come from negotiating and appeasing tyrants and/or dictators?

This is way off topic; we did it again! We can do this U2U.....



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Whether or not war is ever a solution to anything other than over-population is entirely a matter of opinion...I say no it is a waste...you obviously say yes.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join