|
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, "FBI Computer Glich Left 20 Off Terrorist-watch List." 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 "most dangerous". 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 "drug war" was all about. Instead of "punishing" it's own citizens under the disguise of fighting the "war on terror or drugs" why not actually fight the 'war" 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, "sorry you can't"? Your name matches the "big time terrorist" 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 "sane" airline employee that saw the stupidity of the "no-fly list" 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, "The TSA does not stop them from boarding a plane. Almost everything the TSA does is for show; it adds no real security." 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 "terrorism expert." (snicker) It's not JUST a "no-fly" list, it's ALSO a "selectee" 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 "SSI" 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. |
"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 "selectee list" 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 "no fly" and "selectee" 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 "Oplan Bojinka" - 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 "on the TSA list" 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. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:24 AM. |