Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux, The Intercept: Nearly half of the people on the U.S. government's widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group, according to classified government documents obtained by The Intercept. Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government's Terrorist Screening Database -- a watchlist of "known or suspected terrorists" that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments -- more than 40 percent are described by the government as having "no recognized terrorist group affiliation." ... "If everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism," says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent. The watchlisting system, he adds, is "revving out of control."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Shawn

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Terrorism = against the power of the American empire.

Hope and change!

Keep telling me that there are difference between the parties.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Keep telling me that there are difference between the parties.

There are huge differences between the parties on issues like abortion rights, gun control, health care, campaign spending, environmental protection, climate change, affirmative action and gay marriage. To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

If your argument was that there's no substantive difference between the parties on government surveillance, civil liberties, privacy rights and the expansion of executive power, I'd sadly have to agree with you.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-06 08:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

The parties aren't the same but they're the same in the ways that makes neither of them a viable option for fixing our problems. They are both beholden to special interests and will sell the public out without a second thought - usually on the cheap too. They both look to expand their power to the detriment of private citizens.

#2 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-06 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

No there is no difference. They both support the same fascist policies. The only distinction is when they blow the trumpets.

#3 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-06 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

ok that's it...you guys are on the list.

#4 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-06 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

This thread has been flagged with an "ellipsis abuse" flag.

#5 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-06 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its only natural. The bigger the list the bigger the budget.

#6 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-06 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

The bigger government gets the more inefficient [and wasteful of resources] it becomes.

#7 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-08-06 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

No there is no difference. They both support the same fascist policies. The only distinction is when they blow the trumpets.

#3 | Posted by Shawn

So Al Gore wouldve invaded iraq?

Mitt Romney wouldve increased regulations on coal plants?

This is the part where you run and hide as usual...

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"So Al Gore wouldve invaded iraq?"

I know it makes you feel good to pretend you know what he would have done but you don't know crap. What you should know is that a ton of military advisors who were around GWB would have been around Gore as well.

that still means we don't know.....but it means we don't know. stop deluding yourself into believing you do.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There are huge differences between the parties on issues like abortion(no point...won't change. courts are in charge) rights, gun control (prove it), health care (insurance companies would disagree), campaign spending (--------), environmental protection (when the polluters need to bribe the dems...they will), climate change(funny), affirmative action and gay marriage (JUST recently and the courts have ruled anyway). To claim otherwise is to deny reality."

LOL

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

So Al Gore wouldve invaded iraq?

Mitt Romney wouldve increased regulations on coal plants?

This is the part where you run and hide as usual...

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Iraq? Probably considering that Tenant or whatever his name head of the CIA was a democrat appointee and Congress voted in masse to invade Iraq.

Romney increasing regulations? Probably not but, we had plenty of regulations when the BP oil spill happened and it didn't prevent anything. It wasn't the lack of regulation as much as no enforcement of the regulations. They had recovery plans signed off by a guy that had been dead for years. Included emergency plans for animals that didn't even live in the area. Bottom line it was a perfect example of regulators not doing their jobs.

#11 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Iraq? Probably considering that Tenant or whatever his name head of the CIA was a democrat appointee and Congress voted in masse to invade Iraq.

Romney increasing regulations? Probably not

#11 | Posted by Dalton

So my point TO SHAWN - that the parties are not the same - still stands, does it not?

And if you think Al gore wouldve invaded iraq, wouldve used the same military advisors, and wouldve had dick cheney pulling all his strings - there's not much I can do for you.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know it makes you feel good to pretend you know what he would have done but you don't know crap. What you should know is that a ton of military advisors who were around GWB would have been around Gore as well.

that still means we don't know.....but it means we don't know. stop deluding yourself into believing you do.

#9 | Posted by eberly

See #12

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#13

see #9

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

On the other hand compare Government sponsored polio research against private sponsored Hepatitus C research. A polio vaccine (sugar pill) costs one dollar. But the drug company Gilead Sciences, the patent holder on Sovaldi, is charging $84,000 for a 3-month course of treatment for Hepatitus C.

What is the solution? Make private insurance company pay? Deny care to poor patients? or Publically sponsored research?

#15 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-06 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

see #9

#14 | Posted by eberly

I saw #9. All it says is you need to live in a world of make-believe, where what is obvious to everyone else is still in question for you.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's impossible to debate someone who claims to know things that obviously they don't know. Hardly anyone especially in our government were against the Iraq war until soldiers started to die and it became unpopular. I also remember that no one on the left cried about the "waters edge" on foreign policy until Obama became president.

#17 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"world of make-believe"

LOL right....as though it's make believe that Gore would have been listening to many of the same folks GWB listened to.

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL right....as though it's make believe that Gore would have been listening to many of the same folks GWB listened to.

#18 | Posted by eberly

It's make believe he would've invaded iraq based on what they told him and that's obvious to everyone but you for some reason.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Al Gore had nothing to do with PNAC, so no, he would not have invaded Iraq based on his own lies.

#20 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-06 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Yes he would have. Because the whole thing was about oil. Think. Use brain.

#21 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-06 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Yes he would have. Because the whole thing was about oil. Think. Use brain.

#21 | Posted by Shawn

So the green energy guy wouldve done the same thing as the texas oil man? You're the last one to ask someone to use their brain.

Now tell me how romney would've put new limits on coal plants...

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There are huge differences between the parties on issues like abortion(no point...won't change. courts are in charge) rights, gun control (prove it), health care (insurance companies would disagree), campaign spending (--------), environmental protection (when the polluters need to bribe the dems...they will), climate change(funny), affirmative action and gay marriage (JUST recently and the courts have ruled anyway). To claim otherwise is to deny reality."

LOL
#10 | Posted by eberly

Well if there's no difference, why do you vote GOP??

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-06 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Al Gore had nothing to do with PNAC, so no, he would not have invaded Iraq based on his own lies.
#20 | Posted by HeliumRat

Saddam didn't try to kill Al Gore's daddy either. abcnews.go.com

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-06 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

If your argument was that there's no substantive difference between the parties on government surveillance, civil liberties, privacy rights and the expansion of executive power, I'd sadly have to agree with you.

#1 | Posted by rcade

When the Patriot Act was first being debated many of us warned that Presidents rarely give back power they have gained.

But, we were called traitors.

The true Patriots were the ones who tried to stop that monstrosity.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-06 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

No there is no difference. They both support the same fascist policies. The only distinction is when they blow the trumpets.

#3 | POSTED BY SHAWN AT 2014-08-06 10:11 AM | FLAG:

They're just doing what we tell them to do. It's not the parties that are the same, it's the voters.

#26 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-08-07 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"They're just doing what we tell them to do. It's not the parties that are the same, it's the voters."

all we do is mindlessly vote party lines (at least a high enough % of us do to a point where the parties don't really have to listen).

who they are listening to are special interests.....

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

They're just doing what we tell them to do. It's not the parties that are the same, it's the voters.

------

The parties are the same. And the voters have nothing to do with real policy decisions. They don't work for you. They work for the fascisti.

#28 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-07 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"40% on U.S. Terror Watchlist Have No Terror Ties"

So, in other words, we're more accurate than the IDF?

#29 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-08-07 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort