My remark to you was deliberately hyperbolic, and I apologise if the intentional overstatement wasn't readily apparent. I do question the accuracy of these data you present, though...the first link provides no source for its stated figure, not even a departmental one; the second link provides a reference to an FBI report that's over a year old now, but does contain some interesting footnotes.
Namely, this footnote to the 1.1 million entry figure:
And this footnote on its usage by other government agencies:
But what does the TSA do with this data in regard to their no-fly list?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you:
But the report did include criteria that would explain how someone might land on the terror watchlist, right? (doesn't hold breath)
But not to worry, because apparently those in charge of the list don't have much clue either...
Long story made short, I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking you. As you can see just from the selected passages here, there isn't any clear idea of how these lists work by anyone...not even those keeping them. Internal audits show poor adherence to the established policies both of placing suspects on the list when they should be watched and of removing persons from the list once they're "cleared."
Personally, I wouldn't care if these lists were kept 100% in compliance with the policies of the agencies responsible for them...the suggestion discussed in the OP would still be a clear violation of due process. The notion of actually denying any citizen their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on such a vaguely understood and poorly maintained roster as we have in reality is simply unconscionable.
i didnt say attack, i said snarky
maybe its just me, but the rollseyes smiley reads that way to me
i dont get hyperbole from "cloaked in secrecy from top to bottom" because it is. and deliberately hyperbolic? isnt that redundant lol just messin with you
honestly, it doesnt bother me if no one knows how they work. because they definitely wouldnt work if we did.
i agree that you cant just take away constitutional rights all willy nilly just because some people are afraid of the word "terrorist" but Bloomberg wasnt suggesting we prevent someone from buying a gun just that we "look very hard before you let them buy a gun" and hes not wrong
even if they dont actually "take a closer look" just the knowledge that they do would probably be enough to deter a terrorist. what terrorist would be stupid enough to risk going through that?