Now Southwest thinks my husband is a terrorist
 

(Background - husband got on TSA watch list for a reason unknown or unrevealed to anyone - he followed TSA directions and submitted lots of notarized or original paperwork and has flown without problem for 1-2 years since)

Thursday SWA would not let him check-in on-line nor at the kiosk. It took him 30 minutes of questioning by 2 gate attendants and a supervisor - this time it seems they have the TSA info in their computer since they asked him for specific info about place of birth, previous residence. What was funny to me (sitting safely at home) was that they did not ask "Where were you born" but "Were you born in xxxx" and "Did you ever live in zzzzz". Any halfway brain-alive evil-doer would have of course answered yes and been on his way.

Was eventually allowed to board with only 5 minutes to spare. He expects another adventure on return tonight.

Ughhh.... poor guy! Cross my heart I never get on a list like that, and neither will DH.

"Real" terrorists aren't on the watch list as there's a danger it might be leaked to the terrorist who would then know that the US thinks he's a terrorist.

So the US doesn't think your husband is a terrorist

OMG, gail. I've been following the adventures of Mr. Gail for some time and I'm wondering if it will ever end.

I don't know if you saw this on my other thread, but a friend of ours was on the no-fly list. He endured the most ridiculous hassles when traveling so he finally changed his last name and hasn't had any trouble since. It seems like a real terrorist would think of this too and do the same. Of course, I'm not suggesting your husband should change his name, but I sure wish there were a better solution. Good luck and please continue to keep us posted.

PM - thanks for the kind thoughts and I did read your post about the name change. Since I kept my name when we were married 26 years ago, I could suggest he chnge his last name to mine, but I don't think that would go over real well.

If you're still there, gail -- or anyone else who has been placed on the TSA watch list -- how long did it take to get off the list (or been exempted or whatever it is that happens)?

I'm there now too.

I, or at least someone with the same or a similar name, am on the list (it is actually a conglomoration of multiple lists from multiple sources, from what I have read). TSA was surprisingly efficient in giving me a letter clearing me, but there was a substantial delay in the airline's fixing their records, so I went a few months having to check in at the counter, and risking the dreaded special security procedures (which TSA never applied). We usually fly the same airline, and I suspect that if I flew on other airlines, they might experience a delay in getting me cleared, but Southwest, Alaska, and American have let me through with no problems, although some of these were connecting flights where I didn't have to check in. Incidentally, this adventure was when the list was first being used, so perhaps the airlines are more practiced at handling this than they were then.

Even though TSA has cleared me, I still get invited to a private interview by, I think, customs and immigration whenever I return from overseas, but they haven't yet made me miss a connecting flight.

I would be interested in seeing something authoritative confirming that terrorists are not on the list, especially as my impression is that the media has reported instances where someone has been refused transit due to being on the list. Perhaps whoever posted that terrorists are not on the list was just trying to joke; I must have missed the punch line.

Interesting reading:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2066624.shtml

<b>clevelandbrown</b>,

here is your answer: (as ironic as it sounds)

<i>What Kip Hawley wouldn’t tell 60 Minutes is that some of the some of most dangerous terrorists never even end up on the No Fly List, because the intelligence agencies that supply the names don’t want them circulated to airport employees in foreign countries for fear that they could end up in the hands of the terrorists.

Cathy Berrick, the Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues for the General Accounting Office told Kroft that the lists that the airlines get have been sanitized of the most sensitive information.

&quot;They're not given all of the names for security reasons because the government doesn't want to have that information outside of the government,&quot; Berrick says.

&quot;But if the point of the system is to keep dangerous people from getting on airplanes, why would you leave some of the potentially most dangerous people off the list?&quot; Kroft asks.

&quot;Yeah, it's a concern. And I think if you talk with the Department of Homeland Security they would agree with that,&quot; Berrick says. </i>

The explanation would be that exposing some names might jeopardize intelligence sources and methods. Am sure that rationale is overused, but it is probably true in very very few cases.

so it's ok to hastle your own citizens, use the excuse that you are looking for terrorists, yet at the same time have the real terrorist's name off the list?

Please explain......

Am I missing something?

I meant &quot;hassle&quot;, not hastle.....

What AAFF said - what the hell's the use of a NoFly list if the major guys you want not to fly aren't on it?

I think we're well past the Looking-Glass, folks.

Told you so - does this mean that if you AREN'T on the list then the TSA think you ARE a terrorist?

I didn't say that it is ok to hassle your own citizens. What you are missing is that there are legitimate reasons for not disclosing terrorist names to the TSA. I AM SURE THAT IT IS OVERDONE and I am CERTAIN that the govt has screwed up on this to some extent, but there are certainly legitimate reasons for keeping a name off the list.

Suppose Moe, Larry, and Curly are a terrorist cell. The names of Larry and Curly show up on the No Fly List. They figure out that Moe is a spy and kill him.

Suppose Osama is running that terror cell and all three of the stooges show up on the list. Osama knows that he is the only one who knows about them. He figures out that it must be that NSA is listing in on his phone calls to them.

British intelligence learns that Moe is a terrorist and shares this info with the U.S. as most secret and can only be handled via the proper control channels.

People who classify information tend to classify too much info and to over-classify it when it should be. But that is not a reason to make it all unclassified. Maybe we do need to keep it secret that we know that Larry and Curly are bad guys.

.....but there are certainly legitimate reasons for keeping a name off the list........

That is the most, stupid, dumb logic I have ever read. It makes no sense. Either you have a llst or your don't. What is gained my hassling innocent citizens? Only the appearance that you are doing your job. We want the citizens believe that we are protecting you when in fact we are not protecting. It is typical BS spin that this administration has engaged in from the beginning. The focus is on the activity not the results. And then if terrorist does get through and does do something. They have the perfect cover --- Aaaaaaa.... he wasn't on the list. And we will never know if he should have been on the list --- classified. The whole Home Land security business is a disaster. Waste money and no results.

Wow, touchy subject! I guess that if you and your senator are going to go off the deep end when somebody not on the list becomes a successful terrorist then the only thing to do would be to get rid of the list. It can't be all so it has to be nothing on the list. That should help.

Make more sense than your approach. You just put up a circular arguement that no sense. We have a no-fly list with names on it that may or maynot be terrorists -- mostly likely not. But we cannot put big terrorists or major terrorists or whatever you want to call them on the list because it means that we know who they are and we don't want them to know that we know them so they can fly. But these are the guy mostly likely to do the damage but we cannot put them on the list. So why have a list of nobodies. It doesn't make any sense. It is just typical BS spin. All smoke and mirros -- no substance.

Oh yeah, we're winning the war on terror, jutst like we had been, are, and eventually will win the war on drugs.

Thousands of basically good productive citizens sitting in jails for nothing more than a few puffs of a joint so some politician can have an occasional press confrence when a ton of coke gets intercepted, while 100 tons get through. This has been going on for 40-50 years. It keeps many people employed, the police, the lawyers, the court folks, judges, jail builders, jail guards/administration, parole officers, etc.etc. Unfortunately, it's a false economy. We're spending billion$ to keep people employed to mess with mostly innocent people's lives. Imagine what we could do with all the wasted money??? As far as I can tell, we have not made even a fender bender in the drug war since it was declared. In fact the drug business is very much alive and thriving and it's probably bigger now than it ever was.


We make a big jet land in Canada so Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) the most feared terrorist gets turned around and send back to UK. Isn't UK our biggest ally in the war on terror? UK doesn't seem to be too much concerned with him, so why are we?

I'm sure the Homeland Security idiots thought this will make them look good because they finally caught somebody.

??????????????????????????

If that's the best we can do we are in trouble.........

My husband has missed two flights due to being pulled out for extra security screening. His understanding from the airport people is that there's another person with his name on the list that he gets confused with. He is always eventually cleared, but has at least once stayed overnight unexpectedly after being detained &amp; missing last flight of the day. On the other hand, he has a nuclear materials license (as a physician) so who knows!

I have one of those license also BUT have never had a problem. But we now take our shoes because ..... He is probably on the list because he is a physician .... physician were involved in Scotland .... and look at all the people that die in hospitals ... cannot have that. Obviously dangerous.

Articles in today's paper says, &quot;FBI Computer Glich Left 20 Off Terrorist-watch List.&quot; Article further states that the agency has been very slow to clean-up the watch list. As I said before, it is form over substance.

I don't want to defend TSA, but I would point out that they are only doing what the politicians we elect and reelect demand they do. Instead of arguing with some TSA screener about our shoes, the better course would be to flush Congress, yet we almost invariably reelect these clowns.

TSA has a thankless job, and one of the main problems is that if they are successful in preventing terrorist activities, it is not newsworthy and we probably never hear of it; if they screw up, of course, that is front-page news. I would draw the analogy to screens in the windows of a cottage; if the screens work, there are no flies in the house, and some people would then argue that because there are no flies in the house, we don't need any screens.

I think excluding the name of the most dangerous terrorists from the list depends on how one defines &quot;most dangerous&quot;. The actual terrorist acts we see are accomplished by the very bottom workers in the terrorist entity; certainly they are dangerous while they have explosives strapped to their bodies, but I think the most dangerous terrorists are the organizers and financiers of the terrorist entities, who can dispatch dozens of their followers on dozens of missions, and I think it is very unlikely that they will be actual participants in a terrorist attack. So if our intelligence people can identify a high level financier of a terrorist activity, it may make sense to keep that identification secret while we trace the finances, rather than to reveal our hand by placing him on a no-fly list.

Yes!

The intelligence agencies are very careful about protecting their sources and methods for collecting intel. The intel collectors, not the TSA, are probably the ones making the decisions to put or not put some names on the list.

The rant about drugs would probably be better on that A-dam thread.

So, if the most dangerous terrorists names aren't on the lists handed out to TSA, how does the TSA stop them from boarding a plane? How does the TSA catch them? Who's catching them? Anyone?

The TSA does not stop them from boarding a plane. Almost everything the TSA does is for show; it adds no real security.

The best security tends to be invisible. Anything you notice is likely either the result of incompetence or a bit of theater intended to make you <i>feel</i> more secure, even if you aren't. TSA could easily stand for Theater Services Agency.

Unfortunately, given that many of the decision-makers have absolutely no clue concerning what makes good security, I'm not convinced that the visible make-believe is backed up by any real (but invisible) security.

<b>mrwunrfl</b>,

It wasn't a rant about drugs. It was a comparison to what happens when our government wants us to believe that their ideas are working and some of us are buying it.

Some <b>wars</b> can't be won with military. We have to face the reality. That's what my comparison to &quot;drug war&quot; was all about.

Instead of &quot;punishing&quot; it's own citizens under the disguise of fighting the &quot;war on terror or drugs&quot; why not actually fight the 'war&quot; without limiting the freedoms of it's own, mostly good, tax paying, god fearing, hard working citizens?

How would you feel if you were a young marine/soldier, being shot at on a daily basis, protecting the freedoms of our country, and then being told you can't fly home to see your family/girlfriend/boyfriend because the same government that you are fighting for says, &quot;sorry you can't&quot;? Your name matches the &quot;big time terrorist&quot; John Doe.... I actually witnessed this once and his 3 or 4 military friends refused to check in until he got a clearance to fly. It was very disturbing to see. He did get to fly home that day, but it was ONLY because of the &quot;sane&quot; airline employee that saw the stupidity of the &quot;no-fly list&quot; These guys were wearing their military uniforms, all-American young kids, flying on a government nickel, to go home and do their thing before going back to be shot at, possibly killed`.

Very well thought out rationale, Mr. W!

And AnthonyGa, &quot;The TSA does not stop them from boarding a plane. Almost everything the TSA does is for show; it adds no real security.&quot;

Gosh, really? Something tells me that's not quite correct! With a commentary like that, however, I'm surprised you're not on CNN as a so-called &quot;terrorism expert.&quot; (snicker)

It's not JUST a &quot;no-fly&quot; list, it's ALSO a &quot;selectee&quot; list-meaning, that it does not just encompass terrorists who are not allowed to board using various phonetic spellings of their names, but also ordinary people WHO HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO GET THEMSELVES ON THE SELECTEE LIST-like, tried to bring a prohibited item through the checkpoint-and got caught-or other things. Someone like that might be put on the selectee list.

These people will be subjected to heightened security procedures before they are allowed to board.

And as for what the always amusing AAFF had to say, well, I guess he wants everyone around the world to do away with aviation security procedures-that's a GREAT idea, AAFF! Because I go through almost the exact same procedures overseas, and in certain European airports FAR WORSE than what I experience in the US-soooo, I guess what? the rest of the world's aviation security procedures are okay, but TSA's are not? Given that Europe and the rest of the world (all members of ICAO-the international aviation organization) largely harmonize their security procedures based on TSA and the USG's policy?


And as for not putting certain names on the list, you can't have certain information declassified that needs to be kept classified-you just can't. Some information needs to be classified, and other information, like the TSA Name List, is in the category of &quot;SSI&quot; sensitive security information-not classified, but not available to the public, either.

......but also ordinary people WHO HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO GET THEMSELVES ON THE SELECTEE LIST.......

And girlspytravel your background or expertise for making this statement is .......?????? If you believe that, I have some waterfront property that I am sure you would like to buy, That is the gerat problem of giving up personal freedoms --- as long as it doesn't effectme directly, I am OK with it.

&quot;While it was expanding the no-fly list, the TSA was also busy carving out a second list of people who were allowed to fly, but would be screened extra closely on their way to the gates. The government initially denied this &quot;selectee list&quot; existed, but a watchdog group eventually got the goods in a Freedom of Information Act request.

It was EPIC who filed the case, and then ACLU filed another case-they both lost.

And this, from the TSA, explaining about the &quot;no fly&quot; and &quot;selectee&quot; lists. Now, what about that waterfront property?

To answer a question far from manhy posts ago (how long to get off TSA list). My husband has now done it twice. He followed detailed instructions off TSA website and within only a few weeks got a nice letter from TSA stating they were sorry. It also said they had taken him off list, but airlines might not realize that.

In fact, that is what happened for quite a while. Then, like a miracle he could once again use kiosk check-in (essential for time-constrained business travelers). Then out of nowhere, the problem reappeared on SWA.

He followed procedure again and again got a nice letter from TSA. This time it suggested he use only first and last name when booking (instead of middle initial - he has never used that) and that using a FF number might also ease his passage (he always uses FF number for travel).

So TSA seems rather efficient in issuing letters saying one is not a terrorist, but the letter seems to carry little weight and notification/recognition by airline seems to lag.

(By the way, on a flight from Savannah to Boston on Saturday where I was incredibly rushed because of keys locked in car, gas problems, traffic - so I did not have time to be as aware of carry on contents as I should - I was pulled out of line for 8 ounce dangerous sealed water bottle but my explosive hand gel and horrific hand lotion were missed)

Hey Gail: Perhaps you and others would like to know WHY the TSA searches for gels, contact lense solution, etc. It's a little airline plot against US carriers called &quot;Oplan Bojinka&quot; - and it was to be used as a model for the British bomb plot against US carriers uncovered last year:

You can read about it here at Wikipedia, this is taken directly from the court transcripts, in most of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka


When the officers returned to Suite 603 at 2:30 a.m. on January 7, they found: street maps of Manila with routes plotting the papal motorcade, a rosary, a photograph of the pontiff, bibles, crucifixes, papal confessions, and priest clothings, including robes and collars. This collection of objects and a phone message from a tailor reminding the occupant that 'the cassock was ready to be tried on', along with the fact of the Pope's impending visit, was enough for the chief inspector to infer that an assassination plot had been interrupted. A search warrant was granted by 4 A.M on January 7.[3][5]

More chemicals, such as gallons of sulfuric, picric, and nitric acid, pure glycerin, acetone, sodium trichlorate, nitrobenzoyl, ammonia, silver nitrates, methanamine, and ANFO were found. Several cans of gasoline and two large Welch's grape juice bottles containing nitroglycerin were found. Equipment such as thermometers, graduated cylinders, large cooking kettles, funnels, fuses, filters, soldering irons, beakers, mortars, pestles, different electronic fusing systems, timers, switches, and circuit breakers were found. Also discovered in the search was a finished remote control brass pipe bomb, as well as another pipe bomb that was about to be packed. The apartment also contained a chemistry textbook and a chemical dictionary, a TIME magazine with the cover story on international terrorism,[3][5][6] as well as a pharmacy receipt and bottle of contact lens solution. In a cupboard under the sink was a finished time bomb and other Casio watches were found.

The most conclusive piece of evidence found was a manual written in Arabic on how to build a liquid bomb.

Now fast forward to July 2007, to the lovely art city of Perugia, Italy, and those ever vigilant Italians and their discovery of an Islamist terrorist school, 3 Moroccans arrested, where among other things they discovered, BOEING 747 MANUALS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6909961.stm

Never understimate the Italians-they will surprise you every time. And never think that it is not a continuous daily struggle by governments around the world against those who wish to perpetrate criminal acts against civilian airliners.

Then maybe mr. gail should use his middle initial (if he has one) when booking.

Or use full middle name. Don't kiosks accept a driver's license for finding a passenger record? If his MA driver's license has a full middle name, then that might work.

Have now heard from a number of people that they're &quot;on the TSA list&quot; but ONLY for Southwest. When notified by SW, they checked other carriers and said they weren't on the list. Is this something SWA does differently -- and if so what, why, etc.?

Will make even more of a difference with SW's new boarding pass arrangement. Anyone on the SWA-TSA list can't check in automatically, becomes group C-359!

It's SW for me too. Anyone have a hypothesis, or better -- knowledge?

I'm a little skeptical about someone who says they contacted another airline and were told they weren't on the list; if someone flew another airline without a problem, that would be convincing, but to just call them and ask them is a bit beyond what I would believe; its as likely they were just blown off by an agent who didn't want to research the issue, or who believed there was some confidentially to the list. My understanding is that you are not removed from the list (typical of government practices), but that some airlines have the capacity to annotate their copy of the list so that you are passed by that airline, even though you are technically still on the list.

Anyway, I don't know much about southwest, but I think they fall in the category of a no-frills airline; perhaps having an automated system is one of the frills that one shouldn't expect from such carriers.

I flew SW 3 weeks ago and got snagged, was told I'm on the list, given instructions about how to get off the list.

Just returned from Stockholm, Munich, etc. all on United and not a whisper of a problem.

And no, I haven't yet had time to file the forms, so if I'm on a list, in theory, I would have been snagged by UA as well as SW, especially on a trans-atlantic flight, no?

My DH has been on SW's list for a few years. He has no problems with any other carrier. We finally got wise and now book him using his nickname (which is a VERY common nickname for his first name). Now we can both get in group A for boarding via the internet. He can't put his Rapid Rewards number in, but the gate agent or an agent at the check-in area gladly adds the number to his record (no questions asked!).

Great security. Go figure.