By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Multiple federal agencies are utilizing secret watchlists to track and categorize US citizens, particularly protesters and critics of law enforcement, as “domestic terrorists,” according to reporting. These watchlists, codenamed with names like Bluekey and Slipstream, are employed by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. The lists are used to track individuals linked to anti-ICE protests, pro-Palestine activism, and those affiliated with antifa. The existence of these lists contradicts official denials and has raised concerns about the expansion of domestic surveillance, as the lists process tips, analyze social media, and allow for the linking of individuals.
Read the original article here
‘She’s Lying’: Journalist Exposes Secret Watch Lists That Trump Official Says Don’t Exist
It seems the veil is being lifted, or at least, a corner of it. A journalist, Ken Klippenstein, has brought to light the existence of secret watchlists used by federal agencies to monitor and categorize U.S. citizens. These lists, according to Klippenstein’s reporting, specifically target those critical of law enforcement, activists, and protesters, labeling them as “domestic terrorists.” Yet, a Trump administration official has denied the existence of these lists, a denial that rings hollow when considering the weight of evidence and historical precedents.
The creation and utilization of such lists are, unfortunately, not a new phenomenon. History is replete with examples, from the Nazi’s “Black Book” targeting prominent British residents to the Polish “Special Prosecution Book.” These lists are a disturbing sign of evolving authoritarian tactics. The ominous implication is a shift towards a society where dissent and opposition are criminalized, paving the way for the suppression of basic freedoms. This isn’t just about surveillance; it is about control.
One of the more chilling aspects of these lists is the potential for their use in disenfranchisement. The article suggests that those included on these lists may be denied the right to vote. This is an insidious method of political manipulation, which essentially allows a regime to silence opposition and maintain power without having to gain the support of the majority of the population. The emphasis shifts from building an attractive political party to excluding potential voters from the process.
The pieces begin to align, don’t they? We hear stories of ICE agents recording citizens and claiming to have databases that will label people as domestic terrorists. And, as the article mentions, the AI domain is going in a disturbing direction, which is no doubt linked to Palantir’s work. The lack of transparency regarding these lists is a deliberate tactic. It allows authorities to make accusations without providing any evidence, and the silence allows for that to be taken as truth, with little opportunity for factual rebuttal. The goal is to cast doubt, create fear, and ultimately, control.
It’s interesting to note that individuals on social media are already pointing to methods to identify and track individuals. The suggestion of “digital persona non grata,” where access to essential services is denied based on an individual’s perceived threat, is quite worrying. These lists, if implemented as suggested, will certainly be used to ostracize individuals from society.
The potential ramifications of these lists extend beyond mere monitoring. They can influence job opportunities, access to financial services, and even the ability to engage in public discourse. The freedom of speech is threatened when fear of being placed on such a list can censor those who would speak out.
The FOIA requests outlined in the article are a proactive approach to understanding the scope and purpose of these watchlists. These are the tools that allow us to try and pull back the curtain on this growing surveillance state. Requests are being suggested to identify any watchlists, databases, or tracking systems, detailing their purpose, the types of data collected, and the policies that govern their operation. This information is crucial for establishing the extent of governmental overreach and to safeguard fundamental rights.
The strategic notes accompanying the FOIA request are particularly insightful. They recommend avoiding specific requests for names and instead focusing on identifying the existence of the lists, which creates the possibility to challenge the agency’s claims of innocence and denials of existence. It is always wise to be prudent when sharing online. However, it is never more important than the times in which we live to be vigilant against threats to our liberty. The ability to speak freely is the right of every citizen.
The article touches upon the fact that a wide swath of the population may be on these lists. This widespread targeting could render the lists less effective, but also, may enable authorities to select a target and bring to bear any of the many allegations the government is willing to make. The danger doesn’t lie in the existence of the lists themselves, but in their potential use as tools to discredit or eliminate political opponents.
In the face of these developments, the importance of activism and a strong defense of our freedoms is clear. We must resist the urge to silence ourselves or retreat into anonymity. Instead, we must demand transparency and accountability from our government. We need to be vigilant, proactive, and vocal in our defense of a free and open society.