not sure if they are terrorist. first just because our government calls them terrorist, don't mean they are. we don't live over there, so we don't really no,

terrorist or freedom fighter

terrorist or freedom fighters

well i guess anything. to help your career. look what it done for her. hope she got knee pads.

i feel the same, i have work so hard to. this is depressing.

The government's terrorist watch list has swelled to more than 755,000 names, according to a new government report that has raised worries about the list's effectiveness.

The size of the list, typically used to check people entering the country through land border crossings, airports and sea ports, has been growing by 200,000 names a year since 2004. Some lawmakers, security experts and civil rights advocates warn that it will become useless if it includes too many people.

"It undermines the authority of the list," says Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies. "There's just no rational, reasonable estimate that there's anywhere close to that many suspected terrorists."

The exact number of people on the list, compiled after 9/11 to help government agents keep terrorists out of the country, is unclear, according to the report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Some people may be on the list more than once because they are listed under multiple spellings.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who plans a hearing on the report today, says "serious hurdles remain if (the list) is to be as effective as we need it to be. Some of the concerns stem from its rapid growth, which could call into question the quality of the list itself."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: United States | Transportation Security Administration | Homeland Security Department | American Civil Liberties Union | Government Accountability Office | Terrorist Screening Center | Tim Sparapani | Center for National Security Studies | Lisa Graves

About 53,000 people on the list were questioned since 2004, according to the GAO, which says the Homeland Security Department doesn't keep records on how many were denied entry or allowed into the country after questioning. Most were apparently released and allowed to enter, the GAO says.

Leonard Boyle, director of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the list, says in testimony to be given today that 269 foreigners were denied entry in fiscal 2006.

The GAO report also says:

•The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) could not specify how many people on its no-fly list, which is a small subset of the watch list, might have slipped through screening and been allowed on domestic flights.

•TSA data show "a number of individuals" on the no-fly list passed undetected through screening and boarded international flights bound for the United States. Several planes have been diverted once officials realized that people named on the watch lists were on board.

•Homeland Security has not done enough to use the list more broadly in the private sector, where workers applying for jobs in sensitive places such as chemical factories could do harm.

Boyle also urges that the list be used by for screening at businesses where workers could "carry out attacks on our critical infrastructure that could harm large numbers of persons or cause immense economic damage."

But the sheer size of the watch list raised the most alarms.

"They are quickly galloping towards the million mark — a mark of real distinction because the list is already cumbersome and is approaching absolutely useless," said Tim Sparapani of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, says "creating and maintaining a comprehensive terrorist watch list is an enormous endeavor fraught with technical and tactical challenges."

The report, she says, "underscores the need to make the watch lists more accurate, to improve screening procedures at airports and the ports of entry, and to provide individuals with the ability to seek redress if they believe they have been wrongfully targeted."

When I was trying to figure out who I was politically, a long-time conservative friend of the family told me, "When your government gets really out of control (and it will), you will know because your personal freedoms will be the first to suffer. You will see restrictive intrusive laws, abandonment of Constitutional principles and spending like there is no tomorrow. The people doing it will NOT be conservatives."

Here we are today where looking around we see an unprecedented assault on personal freedoms, a none-too-subtle attack on the word and spirit of the Constitution and runaway spending unmatched in history. The people directly responsible for all this say they are conservatives, but are they? Are they focused on conservative issues? Do we see them arguing for tax simplification? Are they doing anything to control federal spending? Has government gotten smaller or less restrictive under their watch? Do I need to keep asking?

The people running this country (the Bush administration and the religious right wing of the Republican Party) are NOT conservatives. I didn't truly believe I would see it happening in my lifetime. I was proud to be a Republican because I believed the Republican Party carried the banner of conservative ideology. I became a Republican understanding that we are the protectors of conservative ideas. Now I look around and I ask, "What has happened? What went wrong? We got the majority and it all fell apart. Are conservative ideals a flawed futility?"

We know the answer, don't we? We (conservatives) didn't get the majority! Religious right-wing Republicans got the majority. Pretending to be conservatives, they swept the Country (almost) and have pressed their ideology into government. There is nothing wrong with conservative ideas and politics. What is wrong is that today's self-proclaimed conservatives have abandoned conservative principles and taken the Republican Party with them. Republican politics have become anything but conservative.
What Ideals?

* Small government
* Personal freedom
* Fiscal responsibility
* Defending America
* States' rights
* Limited federal powers
* Freedom from religious intolerance
* The spirit of the Constitution

i have been to Yankee stadium once. the new yorker were very rude to me.

sorry left out. i do speak a little french. you said thank you my freind.

no I'm not. don't you remember he was a prisoner of war, are you not old enough which is it.

désolé parlez seulement russe/Allemand/Ukraine un anglais

i cant waste my vote on ralph again. so I'm voting for none of the above.

i was watching a show the other day, Thomas feidmen was in France, you can not wear the Hi jab . in school.

we have no choice, i truly respect john McCain, but don't mean i would every vote for him. and obama if you don't vote for him because your white your a racist.

i have to disagree, America was founded on immigrants. for the ones who wear the hi jab. its there religion. so that's what they beleive,if we start choosing what religion we can worship. that makes us no better then the rest.

must are being brainwashed bye the media, because we can complain about one party or the other. but in the end. its us against them. they all suck.

in war people die[ **** I'm sticking up for America, guess I'm sick]it is a fact of life. we should go to cherokee. get a few of those indian trackers. and hunt bin laden ass down. and have a pubic hanging.

yes i no i go to cherokee. alot beautiful area.

you want proof. remember the 3000 Americans that died on 9/11. who was hiding bin laden the Taliban. that all the proof i need.

today in America. people are to lazy to protest. its like the don't have time. if this happen in the 60s. the government would have the guard out. i guess my generation was mean. but we would march to Washington. protest if that did not work. burn it to the ground.